37K71 ^= 




BOUNDARY QUESTION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC 

OF GUATEMALA AND THE REPUBLIC 

OF HONDURAS 



UNDER MEDIATION OF THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF STATE 
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 



Reply on Behalf of Honduras to the Memorandum on the 

Economic Survey Report Submitted by Counsel 

for Guatemala in December, 1919 



ROOT, CLARK, BUCKNER AND HOWLAND, 

Attorneys for the Republic of Honduras 



EMORY R. BUCKNER, 
EDWARD SCHUSTER, 
AUGUSTINE P. BARRANCO, 

Counsel 



New York, January, zgso 



The Kvening Post Job Printing Office. Inc., 15G Fulton St.. N. Y. 






■'B7H7I 




Class „£j_«LM-„ 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/boundaryquestionOOhond 



\ 



/ 

REPLY ON BEHALF OF HONDURAS 



CONTENTS 



^^&^ 



PAGE 

Introductory Statement i 

I. The Cedula of 1563 upon which Guate- 
mala relies to establish the Ulua-Fon- ^d % 
seca Hne, is inconsistent with the 
Cedula of July 24, 1791, and must be 
regarded as abrogated thereby, irre- 
spective of all the other varieties of 
evidence of its derogation submitted 
by Honduras ^ 

II. Before the Mediator recommends a com- 
promise boundary, based on equitable 
compensations, Jie should determine 
the line of uti possidetis of 1821: with- 
out such determination, the essential 
basis for ascertainment of the necessary 
equitable compensations would be lack- 
ing 12 

III. The literature of political science and 

geography by no means uniformly sup- 
ports the Guatemalan argument for a 
mountain chain as the ideal boundary. 18 

IV. The geographical reasons for the moun- 

tain line urged by Counsel for Guate- 
mala are not sustained by the facts; 
and on these, correctly appreciated, 
the line so far as a mountain frontier 
should be adopted, ought to run else- 
where 30 

V. The mountain boundary now proposed by 
Counsel for Guatemala, so far as it 



II 



rests upon the testimony of maps and 
geographers, has no better basis than 
a cartographical error of a Guatemalan 
geographer 37 

VI. The Guatemalan arguments for the line of 
the Merendon, Gallinero, Grita, Espir- 
itu Santo and Omoa mountains, so far 
as based on economic and political con- 
siderations, are outweighed by those 
which may be urged in behalf of Hon- 
duras 38 

VII. In recommending a compromise boundary 
the Honorable Mediator should so far 
as possible respect the line of uti possi- 
detis of 182 1 ; and in so far as he should 
deem it expedient to depart from this 
line, he should disregard all present- 
day occupations verified tortiously or 
since the dispute over the territory 
arose, always making provision for re- 
ciprocal equitable compensations 51 

VIII. Final considerations to be taken into ac- 
count by the Honorable Mediator in 
his recommendation of a compromise 
line 66 

Honduranean Exhibit XXVI [Cedtda of July 24, 

1791) 75 

Reply by Dr. Mary W. Williams to remarks 
made by Counsel for Guatemala in his 
Memorandum on the Economic Survey 
Report, of December, 1919, regarding 
cartographical evidence submitted by 
Honduras 79 



REPLY ON BEHALF OF HONDURAS TO THE MEMO- 
RANDUM ON THE ECONOMIC SURVEY REPORT 
SUBMITTED BY COUNSEL FOR GUATEMALA 
IN DECEMBER, 1919. 



INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 

Counsel for Honduras had supposed that the 
Record in this Mediation was closed when the Briefs 
filed by them and the Counsel for Guatemala were sub- 
mitted to the Honorable Mediator; and that unless 
specific requests for information should be forthcoming 
from the Honorable Mediator, no further notes, evi- 
dence or briefs would be submitted, with the exception 
of the submission by Honduras of a certified copy of the 
cedula of July 24, 1791, which approved the incorpora- 
tion in the Intendencia of Comayagua (i. e., Hon- 
duras) of the Alcadia Mayor of Tegucigalpa and all 
the territory of the Bishopric of Comayagua except the 
port and military post of Omoa. The Representative 
of Honduras did not have in his possession this import- 
ant cedula, although his counsel had taken steps to 
obtain such copy from the Spanish archives. At the 
time he received the verbal assent of the Hon. Boaz 
Long, then the Representative of the Mediator, to file it 
when received. In the sequel it did not prove feasible 
to arrange for the certified copy until Dr. Bonilla went 



2 

to Paris to attend the \'ersailles Peace Conference. 
Upon his return to Washington, Dr. Bonilla trans- 
mitted a certified copy of the cedilla to the Honorable 
Mediator with his note of November 26, 1919. An 
English translation of this cedula is attached hereto, 
marked Honduranean Exhibit XX\'I. 

In December, 1918, the Honorable Mediator fomid 
that in the very brief period remaining before his depar- 
ture for Europe, it would be impossible to give the 
case the attention necessary to justify his suggestion of 
a basis of asrreement for the settlement of the boimdarv 
controversy; but he had examined the case sufficiently 
to foresee that he would require additional information, 
particularly as to topographical conditions along the 
frontier and as to the extent and character of the 
interests likely to be affected by the settlement. He 
therefore proposed "that the two Governments jointly, 
or separately, arrange to procure this information 
under the direction of a representative of this Depart- 
ment" in order that it might be available for use on his 
return (Identic note of December 3, 1918, Mediation 
Record, vol. II, pp. SS7-588). The Mediator's pro- 
posal eventuated in the organization of the Economic 
?kIission organized under the auspices of the American 
Geographical Societ}* and in its Report, dated Septem- 
ber, 1919. 

Counsel for Honduras desire to state that Dr. 
Bomlla did not, as affirmed by Mr. Anderson, refuse to 
agree to the Mediator's proposal for the despatch of the 
^lission. He at once accepted the proposal in principle 



3 

DUt TTi ciGc CcTZa.!]! O u it.rv a. Zl' jUS S.nu rcQlicStcQ tlLc UCHHl- 

tion of certain ambiguous points. — ^all ten dins- 1: i5="rr 
the successful outcome of the ^lissicn. ?rt5jr_'r :. " 
through the Mediator's absence, his iK)te cf 1 t.tmitr 
11, 1918, remained unansivered- 

In view of the fact that Counsel for Guatemala had 
in December last filed with the Honorable Mediator a 
Memorandum on the Re part of the Economic ^lissiin. 
the Hon- Leo S. Rowe, the present RepresentatiTe of 
the Mediator, at his conference with the Representa- 
tives of the two Governments and their Counsel held 
January 2, 1920, gave Honduras the oppctrtunitv of fil- 
ing a R^fly and such additicnal dccuments as should be 
desired, on the conditicn zsl^z zzty be sulmrittec n:: 
later than the olst of the month. It was verzill'^ 
agreed with Dr. Rowe by the conies that thi^ Reph 
for Hondm-as and its exhibits shoold be irnsi\ and that 
the Representative of Guate~ il£ md his counsel shoold 
submit no further memoranda or docnments. 

In submitting the present Reply to !Mr. Anderson's 
Memoranahin on the Economic Survey Re pari. Qzin- 
sel for Honduras desire to explain that they promise 
therein also to ccmment upc»n and rebut so much of the 
matter in his Summing-up of December last as goes 
beyond the proper limits of a summary of the n<3tes 
ani en fence filed by the parties. Such procedure is 
the more permissible in view of the fact that Mr. Ander- 
son has by reference incorpc»rated thi'g i: zument in his 
Memorandum on the Report of tite Z::n:niic iMissirn. 

Counsel f :r Honduras wish also to state thai since 



a considerable portion of Mr. Anderson's final Menio- 
randuui is devoted to a criticism of the soundness of 
the conclusions expressed by Dr. Williams in her 
Cartographical and Geographical Report and to an 
attempt to negative the evidential value of the maps 
filed by Honduras, they have obtained from Dr. Wil- 
liams, and submit herewith, a brief Reply with whose 
considerations they are in accord and therefore adopt. 
They have felt that the points at issue could most 
effectively be dealt with" by the expert originally 
engaged by them. 

Counsel for Honduras do not propose herein to 
engage the Honorable Mediator's attention with a re- 
argument of the fundamental legal issues and prin- 
ciples which are involved in the present controversy. 
They have found nothing in the Brief submitted by the 
Counsel for Guatemala to shake either the soundness 
of the position taken by Dr. Bonilla in the Notes filed 
by him with the Mediator or of the arguments put for- 
ward by them in their Brief in support of this position. 

To this proposal, however, there are two quaHfica- 
tions. The first is that it becomes necessary to discuss 
the ccdula of July 24, 1791, since its text was not avail- 
able when their Brief was prepared and Counsel for 
Honduras were accordingly forced to rely on refer- 
ences thereto in printed sources. The second qtialifica- 
tion is that it is necessary, in view of the attempt of 
the Counsel for Guatemala to shift the issue joined, to 
discuss the proper procedure for the Honorable Medi- 
ator to follow in recommending a boundary line. 



THE CEDULA OF 1563 UPON WHICH GUATEMALA 
RELIES TO ESTABLISH THE ULUA-FONSECA LINE, IS 
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CEDULA OF JULY 24, 1791, AND 
MUST BE REGARDED AS ABROGATED THEREBY, IRRE- 
SPECTIVE OF ALL THE OTHER VARIETIES OF EVIDENCE 
OF ITS DEROGATION SUBMITTED BY HONDURAS. 

An inspection of the text of the cedula of July 24, 
1791, shows that the references to it in print which 
were available to Counsel for Honduras when they pre- 
pared their Brief, were accurate in respect of stating 
that its effect was to incorporate in the Intendencia of 
Comayagua (Honduras) all the territory of its Bishop- 
ric, except the port and military post (plaza) of Omoa 
{Mediation Record, vol. II, pp. 410, 411, 422, 448). 
If now the Honorable Mediator will examine the trans- 
lation of the cedula text, attached hereto as Hondur- 
anean Exhibit XXVI, he will note that it is a royal 
decree made by the King acting with his Council of 
Indies, after hearing his Solicitor General (Fiscal), 
duly noted in the Office of the Auditor General; and 
that it legislated upon the question of the proper ter- 
ritorial limits of the jurisdiction of the Governor-/w- 
tendente of Honduras, defining such jurisdiction as 
just mentioned. 

The cedula is addressed by the King in Council to 
the President and Ministers of the Superior Board of 
the Royal Treasury at Guatemala City, who under the 
new system of Intendencias introduced in 1787 into the 
Captaincy General of Guatemala were the supreme 



6 

authority therein. In it the King advised them: "I 
have resolved to approve (as by this my Royal Cedilla 
I approve) in all its parts your said order of January 
9, 1788". 

This order of the Superior Board of the Treasury 
is summarized as follows in the preamble of the cedilla: 

" . . .at the meeting held on January 9 of 
said year 1788 you ordered the incorporation in 
the Intendcncia of Comayagua of the said Alcal- 
dia of Tegucigalpa with all the Territory of its 
Bishopric, with the exception only of the mili- 
tary post (plaza) and port of San Fernando de 
Omoa, where its Political and Military Gover- 
nor should remain as it had up to then, the 
Treasury Department continuing subject to the 
Superintendency General and separated from 
the Province of Comayagua, in considera- 
tion of the fact that said military post (plaza) 
and Government had always corresponded to 
the Superior Government of the Kingdom and 
of the fact that its ties with Golfo-dulce, Bode- 
gas Altas and the Royal Customs of your Capi- 
tal would not suffer its separation from the said 
Superintendency without leaving exposed to 
many complications mercantile operations and 
the operations of the Royal Treasury which 
daily occurred in the said Port, which order 
(Providencia) you hoped would merit my 
Royal approval or that I should be pleased to 
decide what should be my Royal wish." 

The preamble of the cedilla in addition summarizes 
the petition of Brigadier Quesada, Governor-Inten- 



dente of Honduras, which gave rise to the order of the 
Superior Board, dated January 9, 1788, showing that 
this order not only defined in general the territorial 
jurisdiction of the GovQvnor-Intendente of Honduras, 
but also restored to his jurisdiction the District of San 
Pedro Sula which Matias de Galvez had taken from 
him and placed under the control of the Military Com- 
mandant of Omoa, for the duration of the war then 
waging : 

"By letter of April 2, 1788, you gave account 
with certified copy of the appeal which Don 
Juan Nepomuceno de Quesada, being Governor- 
Intendente of Comayagua, made to your Su- 
perior Government, setting forth that through 
what is provided in articles 8 and 9 of the Royal 
Ordinance of Intendentes to the effect that the 
several officials of each Province should be con- 
sidered Sub-delegate Vice-Patrons of the Prin- 
cipal official, and that after its publication the 
Corregimientos and Alcaldias May ores should 
be suppressed as they should become vacant, it 
appeared to him that in this number should be 
comprehended the Alcaldia Mayor of Teguci- 
galpa, whose Province was subordinate to that 
of his command, and that it was so united with 
his Province as well in Ecclesiastical matters as 
in the collection of Tribute, payment of salaries 
and other things relating to the Royal Treas- 
ury, that the Royal intentions detailed in the 
said Ordinance could not be entirely obeyed, if 
all were not subject to the Order of the Inten- 
dencia, and that for the same reason he con- 
sidered that the occasion had arrived of reunit- 



8 

ing also with the Intcndcncia the District of 
San Pedro de Sula, which by special order of 
the late President-Governor of your Kingdom, 
Don Matias de Galvez, was added to the Com- 
mandancy of Omoa, but with the proviso that 
this should only be for the time that the war 
should endure; since although the war had 
ended, he did not represent it (the District of 
San Pedro de Sula), believing that said Com- 
mandant did so in order to have said District 
more in view, at the present day he was forced 
to request that its reunion be considered as in- 
dispensable for the collection of Tribute in 
accordance with the method established by said 
Ordinance, declaring also whether the Treas- 
uries of Omoa should be considered subject to 
the Intendencia as established in the District of 
the Province, in order with this knowledge to 
make the distribution of the towns and Valleys 
which should pay tribute into the said Treas- 
uries, and into those of Comayagua, or whether 
all should go to these Treasuries." 

The evidence as to the extent of the ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction of the Bishop of Honduras has been amply 
considered in the Brief for Honduras {Mediation 
Record, vol. H, pp. 433-437, 446-447, 461-462 and 475). 
It is only necessary here to recall that this evidence 
proves beyond a peradventure that the episcopal juris- 
diction of the Honduranean Bishop extended, at this 
date of 1791, and to the end of the colonial epoch, at 
least as far West as the Motagua River and included 
all of the hilly territory to the South inside of the 



present line of Honduranean occupation; and that 
this fact is confirmed by the evidence of a political 
character, to say nothing of the evidence of other 
varieties. See especially the 1804 Report and accom- 
panying map of Ramon de Anguiano, Governor- 
Intendente of Honduras, both of which have been in- 
troduced in evidence by Honduras (references in Brief 
for Honduras, Mediation Record, vol. II, pp. 427-428). 

This ecclesiastical evidence, when taken with the 
cedida of 1791, seems to Counsel for Honduras to 
supply, — in the language of the Article VI of the treaty 
of 1914, — "boundaries defined in public documents not 
in conflict with others of the same kind and of greater 
force". The cedida of 1791 is "of the same kind" as 
those of 1563 and 1564, since it defines the jurisdiction 
of a province or intendencia; and as emanating from 
the same authority at a later date, it is a public docu- 
ment "of greater force" than the two cedulas of the 
16th century. They are of opinion that it meets the 
unconvincing and somewhat meticulous specifications 
of the Guatemalan Representative and of his Counsel, 
for a cedida of a later date than those of 1563 and 
1564 defining territorial jurisdiction, — even if the 
Mediator were not convinced of the soundness of their 
contention that the cedula of 1564 in repealing that of 
1563, before it left in the next mails for the Indies, 
restored the boundaries therein defined as previously 
existing (Brief, Mediation Record, vol. II, p. 405). 

As a result of the cedula of July 24, 1791, the Gov- 
trnor-Intendente of Honduras was confirmed in his 
authority over the whole of his Province or Inten- 



10 

dencia, with the sole exception of the Port and Mili- 
tary Post of Omoa. 

Omoa, the sole exception, was restored to Hondur- 
anean jurisdiction by the cedula of October 16, 1818, 
the King in Council using the following language 
(Honduranean Exhibit XIV, Mediation Record, vol. 
I, pp. 155-156): 

"The King. To the Governor, Captain Gen- 
eral and President of the Royal Audiencia of 
Guatemala. Santiago Milla, ex-deputy to the 
Cortes for the Province of Honduras, informed 
me on August 22, 1814, that in the instructions 
given to him by that Province he was directed, 
among other things, to petition, as he has done, 
for the reincorporation of the Port of Omoa to 
the Government of Comayagiia, situate to the 
north and in the territory of that Province . . . 
In consequence of which, and after hearing 
above all my fiscal and his general treasury of 
the Indies, it (the Council) consulted me on July 
31 last as to what was deemed advisable to 
remedy such abuses, and being satisfied with 
its opinion, I have commanded and I do hereby 
command by this my royal rescript: That the 
aforesaid port of Omoa shall remain immedi- 
ately subject to the Government of Comayagiia 
in the manner in zvhich 'it had been prior to its 
annexation to Guatemala, without prejudice to 
the authority to which you are entitled as the 
superior chief of the Province: And I inform 
you thus in order that you may make such 
orders as may be advisable for the fulfillment 
of this my royal decision, because this is my 
will." 



11 

Counsel for Guatemala did not refer in his Brief 
to the cedula of 1791 ; but he has insinuated as to the 
cedilla of 1818 that it was never put into effect, bolster- 
ing this with a reference to the alleged satisfaction 
with which Honduras accepted an order of the War 
Department of the Mexican Emperor, Iturbide, dated 
November 4, 1822 {Mediation Record, vol. II, p. 579). 
Mr. Anderson did not meet the burden of proving his 
allegation that the 1818 cedula was never put into effect. 
Moreover, if such an allegation were to be seriously 
considered, it would apply with even greater weight to 
the cedula of 1563 and that of 1564 (as construed by 
him) upon which his principal relies, especially as Hon- 
duras and her counsel have provided an accumulation 
of convincing evidence showing that the cedula of 1563 
was in all probability repealed before it reached the 
mails for the Indies and, if not, that the legislative, 
administrative, ecclesiastical and cartographical his- 
tory of the remaining two and a half centuries of the 
colonial history reveals no trace of the existence or 
application of this cedula {Brief for Honduras, points 
I, especially section (2) thereof, and III). That Hon- 
duras ever accepted the order of Iturbide's War 
Department (postdating the year of the uti possidetis, 
be it noted), has been refuted by Dr. Bonilla with the 
very document on which Mr. Anderson relied (Hon- 
duranean Note of June 29, 1918, Mediation Record, 
vol. I, p. 141). 



12 



II. 

BEFORE THE MEDIATOR RECOMMENDS A COMPRO- 
MISE BOUNDARY, BASED ON EQUITABLE COMPENSA- 
TIONS, HE SHOULD DETERMINE THE LINE OF UTl 
POSSIDETIS OF 1821: WITHOUT SUCH DETERMINATION, 
THE ESSENTIAL BASIS FOR ASCERTAINMENT OF THE 
NECESSARY EQUITABLE COMPENSATIONS WOULD BE 
LACKING. 

In the failure of Guatemala and Honduras to agree 
upon the arhitration of their disputed frontier by the 
President of the United States of America, as provided 
in article IX of their treaty of 1914, they accepted the 
mediation proffered by his Secretary of State for the 
settlement of this frontier on the basis of his recom- 
mendations; and in pursuance of such acceptance the 
present proceedings have taken place. The treaty of 
1914 has remained the law of the parties and articles 
VI and VII govern the determination of the legal line 
of the iiti possidetis of 1821 and the recommendations 
of the Honorable Mediator. The memoranda filed by 
the Special Representatives of the two Governments 
harmonize with this theory of the mediation, those of 
Dr. Toledo Herrarte being distinguished by their 
emphasis and insistence upon the determination of the 
frontier on the strict principle of the uti possidetis juris 
of the year of independence. Thus in his final memo- 
randum of September 20, 1918, Dr. Toledo Herrarte 
stated {Mediation Record, vol. I, pp. 270-271) : 

"The controversy must be examined from a 
strictly legal point of view in order to establish 



13 

with exactness and precision the territorial 
rights of Guatemala and Honduras, and in order 
to comply with this indispensable requisite, I 
understand that this study must be made strictly 
and only upon the basis of the treaty of 1914 
which constitutes the law by which we must be 
governed, and the provisions and stipulations of 
which have been considered by both parties as 
the invariable standard to which the whole pro- 
cedure, after reaching a just solution of the 
controversy, must be adjusted. 

"Both the honorable delegation of Hon- 
duras and the delegation over which I have the 
honor to preside have already stated everything 
they have deemed necessary to establish, accord- 
ing to law, where the boundary line must be 
established between the two States, and for this 
purpose they have filed all the briefs and argu- 
ments which they have deemed advisable." 

This was but a restatement of the position of Gua- 
temala in her Representative's other notes, which are 
extracted and evaluated by Counsel for Honduras, in 
their Bidef, to which the Honorable Mediator is re- 
ferred {Mediation Record, vol. H, pp. 415-417). 

As a result, this mediation has differed from an 
arbitration only in respect of the informality of the 
discussions had with the Honorable Mediator's rep- 
resentatives and of the memoranda and evidence 
filed with him and in the inobservance of the peremp- 
tory terms of an arbitration. The function of the 
Honorable Mediator still remains that of the arbitrator, 



14 

except that he is granted ample discretion in recom- 
mending a compromise Hne, which the arbitrator would 
be denied, unless in the course of the arbitration the 
two Governments should grant it in pursuance of article 
VII of the treaty. 

Counsel for Guatemala has expressly accepted these 
views of counsel for Honduras. In his Brief he stated 
(Mediation Record, vol. II, p. 575) : 

*'It is evident from the foregoing considera- 
tions that the function of the Mediator is to 
propose for the acceptance of the two Govern- 
ments a boundary line which will furnish a per- 
manent and lasting solution of their differences 
in view of their political and economic require- 
ments, taking into consideration their respect- 
ive contentions and the legal bases for the same 
with such readjustments as may be required 
under the system of equitable compensations as 
provided by Article 7 of the treaty of 1914, 
including such modifications as may be required 
to make it conform to the best natural boun- 
daries in order that a clear and stable line may 
be established. 

"The real distinction to be drawn between 
mediation and arbitration, as applied to the 
functions of the Mediator in this case, is that 
for the purpose of reaching a definite boundary 
agreement through mediation both parties have 
conferred upon the Mediator certain discretion- 
ary powers, whereas discretionary powers are 
not generally conferred upon an arbitrator." 



15 

Again, in his final Summing-up of October, 1919, 
Mr. Anderson says: 

''The question, therefore, in accordance with 
the treaty, is a question of domain; the de facto 
possession cannot and must not be taken into 
consideration." 

Further on, in the same document, after reviewing 
the legal evidence submitted by both parties, Counsel 
for Guatemala adds : 

"In conclusion, it cannot be gainsaid that, 
for the determination of the boundaries between 
the Republics of Guatemala and Honduras, the 
fundamental bases are the Royal Orders of the 
Spanish sovereign issued in 1563 and 1564, 
which fill all the requirements demanded by the 
treaty of 1914." 

So evident a matter would not be dwelt upon, if it 
were not for the fact that at the conference of January 
2, 1920, the Representative of Guatemala and his Coun- 
sel verbally expressed qualifications of the function of 
the Mediator which are inconsistent with the issues 
joined — be it noted, joined on the initiative and reitera- 
tion of the Guatemalan Representative — and which if 
implicitly followed by the Honorable Mediator might 
jeopardize the successful outcome of the mediation. 
These qualifications involved nothing less than the idea 
that the Mediator was free to recommend a frontier 
without ascertaining the line of uti possidetis of 1821. 

While Counsel for Honduras have no desire to 



16 

commit the Honorable Mediator to any given train of 
mental processes, they urge that in his recommenda- 
tions he express his opinion as to the location of the 
line of titi possidetis of 1821, whether considered as 
de jure (as insisted by Guatemala) or as merely de 
facto. They are convinced that he should ascertain 
this line as the necessary basis for his recommendations 
of a compromise line and of the reciprocal compensa- 
tions which will justify the acceptance of such compro- 
mise line by the two Republics. 

If the Honorable Mediator does not ascertain what 
was the line of possession in 1821, he will disregard 
the provisions of the treaty of 1914, which continues 
to govern the parties to this Mediation ; and he will also 
have no just criterion with which to evaluate the 
changes in the line of possession which have subse- 
quently taken place. In addition in recommending a 
compromise line, he will have no means of measuring 
the reciprocal compensations to which the parties will 
be entitled under article VII of the treaty, so far as 
these compensations are territorial in character. 

These preliminary observations premised. Counsel 
for Honduras next propose to refute the arguments of 
Counsel for Guatemala and to show : first, that a moun- 
tain chain does not furnish the ideal scientific frontier ; 
second, that the orography of the disputed region is 
such that the mountain chain proposed by him is not 
available as a frontier in its entire extension and that 
there exist other mountains which far more closely 



17 

approximate the line of possession both in 1821 and 
at the present day; third, that this mountain chain as a 
proper boundary has no support in the cartographical 
and geographical evidence antedating 1821, and that 
the evidence of this character postdating the year of 
Independence, which indicates this line, is based upon 
a cartographical error of a Guatemalan geographer; 
fourth, that upon the considerations of a politico- 
economic character urged by Counsel for Guatemala, 
Honduras has greater claim to the region between 
this mountain chain and the Motagua River than 
has Guatemala; and fifth, that the Honorable Media- 
tor, in recommending a compromise line, should 
so far as possible respect the line of the uti possidetis 
of 1821, and insofar as he should find it expedient to 
depart from this line in order to take account of the 
present-day possession of the parties, he should not 
recognize any tortious occupations verified since the 
first boundary treaty of 1845, and he should as to any 
modern possession admitted, always make provision for 
equitable compensations, in accordance with the treaty 
stipulation, — in either event taking advantage of local 
topographical features in the detailed meander of the 
line. 



18 



III. 

THE LITERATURE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND GE- 
OGRAPHY BY NO MEANS UNIFORMLY SUPPORTS THE 
GUATEMALAN ARGUMENT FOR A MOUNTAIN CHAIN AS 
THE IDEAL BOUNDARY. 

Mr. Anderson has devoted the major portion of his 
Siimming-Up and his Memorandum on the Report of 
the Economic Survey to a demonstration that a moun- 
tain chain furnishes the ideal scientific frontier, in 
order thus to convince the Honorable Mediator that he 
should recommend as the compromise boundary the 
Omoa-Espiritu Santo-Grita-Gallinero chain rather 
than the consequently inferior river boundary provided 
by the Motagua and Managua rivers. 

It must have embarrassed the present Counsel for 
Guatemala that his distinguished predecessors, Marure 
and Larreynaga in the proceedings which led to the 
boundary treaty of 1845 took exactly the opposite stand 
and argued with equal eloquence for a river frontier. 
In their Instructions of 1844 to the Guatemalan boun- 
dary Commissioner, Marure and Larreynaga stated 
{Mediation Record, vol. I, p. 253) : 

"From the point at Chucuyales, following 
the mountain to the Motagua, it forms a 
boundary, and also the river to its mouth in the 
Bay of Omoa or Honduras. This boundary 
must be fixed as certain because it is so stated by 
Father Juarros at vol. I, p. 35, and as such has 
been recognized in the past by usage and cus- 
tom. Law 1, tit. 1, bk. 5 of the Indies, provides 



19 

that with respect to boundaries, that established 
by use and custom shall be abided by and 
accepted. It also orders that the one decided 
upon previously by royal ordinance and superior 
orders shall be accepted and abided by without 
doubt or objection. A river, is one of the most 
important means, therefore, even though it 
should not be proven that it really is. It should 
he presumed. It is so stated in the Curia Filipica 
Mar, Art. River, No. 18. In case of doubt the 
ends of the jurisdictions are understood to he 
divided by the river, as stated by Gregorio 
Lopez, because it is believed that the river was 
placed by nature as an eternal boundary of the 
sections." 

In support of his contention that a mountain 
boundary furnishes the ideal boundary, Mr. Anderson 
quotes from the works of Fawcett and Holdich. These 
specialists belong to what may be called the military 
school of political geographers whose premise is that 
the contact of adjoining peoples produces friction and 
often war and, accordingly, that the ideal frontier is 
that which provides an isolating or defensive barrier 
{e. g., Fawcett, Frontiers, p. 29; Holdich, Political 
Frontiers and Boundary Making, pp. 30 and 128), But 
even Holdich and Fawcett are agreed that under 
special circumstances, as for instance in thinly-popu- 
lated and tropical regions or between countries which 
have not reached a high degree of industrial develop- 
ment, a river frontier may be superior to a mountain 
line. The river line is easily ascertainable; and it does 



20 

not require heavy expenses of survey or demarcation 
and of the up-keep of artificial monuments. 
Thus Holdich writes {op. cif., p. 156) : 

"Next to mountain ranges, rivers afford the 
most tangible line for boundary definition. 
There is no mistaking the line, there is no waste 
over artificial constructions in connection with 
demarcation. Their geographical conditions 
and environment are always better known, and 
they do very often serve the purpose of a barrier. 
There are geographical conditions in many parts 
of the globe where a river line is the only one 
possible to afford any prospect of permanence 
and easy recognition. Indeed it entirely depends 
on these same conditions of environment 
whether a river is a good boundary or a bad one. 
Where the surrounding country is a waste of 
trackless forest or wild upland, and where 
the river is confined to a comparatively narrow 
channel in a rockbound bed, it is a God-sent 
feature for boundary-making, and requires no 
assistance from man. . . ." 

Again, Fawcett says (op. cit., p. 54) : 

"A river, as a boundary, possesses the one 
great advantage of being easily recognizable, 
and hence of needing no demarkation. This ad- 
vantage is particularly valuable under primitive 
conditions and in thinly peopled or unoccupied 
territories, where a recognizable limit is needed 
and a precise and costly demarkation is unde- 
sirable or unnecessary. Some of the North 
American river boundaries seem to be inherit- 
ances from this stage of development. . . ." 



21 

It is true that Fawcett goes on to say that a valley- 
is a natural unit of population ; that it tends to become 
a place of frequent intercourse; and that the peoples 
of its banks become more or less assimilated to one 
another. But the answer to these observations is that 
in our special case, the population of the Motagua 
river system has been uniform in race and speech since 
before the Spanish conquest. The inhabitants are of 
the Chorti race and occupy not only the hydrographic 
basin of the Motagua River but also spread eastward 
beyond the mountain chain here under discussion. 
(Thomas, Indian Languages of Mexico and Central 
America and their Geographical Distribution, pp. 69, 
70; and see linguistic map at the end). Since the 
advent of the Spaniards they have also possessed 
in common the Spanish language and Catholic religion. 
As the Economic Survey has reported, they enter- 
tain fraternal feelings for one another, notwith- 
standing their respective Honduranean and Guate- 
malan nationalities {Report, Nos. 118-119). In our 
case, acordingiy, there exists the reverse of the usual 
historical development : an uniform race, with the same 
language, religion and customs was, through the acci- 
dent of the Spanish conquest and for reasons of ad- 
ministrative convenience during the colonial epoch, 
segregated into separate provinces, which since 
achieving independence have continued as separate 
sovereign nationalities, and in the course of four cen- 
turies have acquired their respective national con- 
sciousness. This national consciousness has received 



22 

the sanction of American international law and is 
formulated as the principle of the uti possidetis of the 
year of independence (Brief for Honduras, Mediation 
Record, vol. II, pp. 414-415; and authorities cited). 

Fawcett then goes on to say that with a river 
boundary, with the advance of civilization it becomes 
necessary to control the course of the river, to drain its 
bordering marshes, to improve it for navigation, to 
regulate its use for water power, irrigation and town 
water supply ; and that these necessities become sources 
of friction. The answer to these objections is simple: 
a special convention can be negotiated between the par- 
ties under the supervision of the Mediator. There is 
an ample body of precedents, including, besides the con- 
ventions which are actually in force for the various in- 
ternational rivers, the Standard Regulations adopted 
by the Institute of International law at its Heidelberg 
meeting in 1887 and the Special Regulations for the 
industrial and agricultural use of rivers adopted at its 
Madrid meeting in 1911 ( Kaeckenbeeck, International 
Rivers, pp. 173-187 and passim). There is also avail- 
able the American-Mexican experience with the Rio 
Grande (Moore, Digest of International Lazv, vol. I, 
Sec. 160). 

As a convenient summary of the views of what 
Counsel have designated as the military school of 
writers, the following passage from Lord Curzon's 
Lecture on Frontiers (pp. 21-22) may be quoted: 

''Accordingly the advantages and disadvan- 
tages of rivers as Frontiers may be thus stated. 



23 

The position of the river is unmistakable, no 
survey is required to identify or describe it, and 
the crossing-places frequently admit of fortifica- 
tion. Rivers are lines of division as a rule very 
familiar to both parties, and are easily trans- 
ferred to a treaty or traced on a map. On the 
other hand, they may be attended by serious 
draw-backs, confronting diplomatists and jurists 
with intricate problems. Rivers are liable to 
shift their courses, particularly in tropical 
countries. The vagaries of the Helmund in 
Seistan, where it is the boundary between 
Persia and Afghanistan, have led to two 
Boundary Commissions in thirty years. The 
precise channel which contains the Frontier line, 
the division of islands, very likely new accre- 
tions, in the riverbed, the determination of 
drinking-rights or of water-rights in cases 
where cultivation is only effected by means of 
irrigation from the Frontier river, the exact 
identity of the source of a river, if this be men- 
tioned in a Treaty or Convention, or of its main 
affluent, or, in a deltaic region, of its mouth, the 
provision required for navigation, police, and 
fiscal control — all of these suggest possible dif- 
ficulties in the acceptance of a river boundary, 
particularly in new or tropical countries, which 
cannot be ignored. In ancient and civilized 
States the procedure to be followed in many of 
these cases is regulated by international agree- 
ment or by the Law of Nations. The general 
principles regarding the navigation of rivers 
traversing different States were indeed em- 



24 

bodied in Articles 108-116 of the Final Act of 
the Congress of Vienna, and have been applied 
by subsequent Agreements to some of the prin- 
cipal rivers of Europe, Africa and America." 

The problems mentioned by Lord Curzon as arising 
out of the shifting of the courses of tropical rivers 
would only arise in the last dozen kilometers of the 
Motagua River. International law has developed the 
necessary rules to cover such developments (Brief for 
Honduras, Mediation Record, vol. II, pp. 464-465) ; 
and the suggested International Convention could con- 
veniently provide for their application. The upper 
course of the Motagua River and the whole course of 
its affluents consist of V-shaped canyons which in Col. 
Holdich's phrase provide a "God-sent feature for boun- 
dary making requiring no assistance from man". 

But there is not lacking a newer trend of thought 
wherein the belief is expressed that the future destiny 
of nations is toward a state of peace; and that frontiers 
of union and communication will best promote peaceful 
relations. Thus Professor Lyde in his recent lectures 
on Some Frontiers of Tomorrozv, says (pp. 15-16) : 

"It is, however, not the destiny of the world 
to be for ever at war ; war is not even its normal 
state; and the conception of the role of a 
frontier is already changing, so that in the 
future — perhaps not the nearest future — the 
principles underlying the delimitation of a 
frontier will be such as involve all possible aids 
to the peaceful meeting of nations, not to their 
parting. 



25 

"Three points are of vital importance, as sug- 
gested in the Introductory chapter : ( 1 ) that the 
feature used as a frontier should be associated 
not with war, but with peace; (2) that the unit 
of area should have some direct relation to 
national sentiment; (3) that inability to assimi- 
late should disqualify any Power for territorial 
expansion. Of these the most important is that 
the feature used for the frontier should be, as 
far as possible, one where men naturally meet. 
Obviously, this is not on water-partings and 
mountain-crests, or in deserts and swamps; and 
no other science has such claims as Geography 
to say authoritatively what, and where, such 
natural meeting-places are. . . . All three 
aspects of the science [historical, political and 
economic geography] affirm that there are cer- 
tain lines along which in every latitude people 
tend naturally to meet in peace; and the most 
important, the most universal, and the most 
obvious of these is a navigable river — it is also 
at once indisputable, and costs absolutely noth- 
ing to delimit. Along such lines even the most 
discordant elements have a maximum tendency 
to concord. . . ,'' 

Again, M. Moulin, Professor of Public Inter- 
national Law at the University of Dijon, has said 
{Litige Chilo-Argentin et la Delimitation des Fron- 
tier es Naturelles, pp. 51-52) : 

''But when international relations take on a 
more pacific character, and when nations com- 
prehend at the same time that they have a 
mutual interest in pursuing among them regular 



26 

exchanges and in agreeing upon physical ob- 
stacles as their political frontiers whose route 
they define, they recognize in a river this double 
advantage of being at once a way of traffic and 
a natural barrier. And it is thus in our epoch 
that the international treaties which, either by 
special accord among States or by general con- 
vention made by the powers, have attributed ter- 
ritorial limits to new States, have voluntarily 
chosen the course of a great river as the political 
frontier : thus the Danube in the Balkan region, 
the Oubanghi in Africa, etc. The river is like 
the tangible image of the modern frontier, which 
in time of peace allows men and products to cir- 
culate freely from either side of the line, and 
which at the same time marks the contact of two 
absolute sovereignties, of two impenetrable 
political organisms, and which, in time of peace 
as in time of war, should be defended against 
aggression and invasion." 

Counsel for Guatemala has stressed the advantages 
of mountain claims as the ideal frontier; and by his 
quotations from Fawcett and Holdich endeavored to 
leave the impression with the Mediator that they are 
under all circumstances the ideal frontier. It is only 
just that Counsel for Honduras be permitted to com- 
plete the picture by calling attention to the disadvan- 
tages, which in a sparsely settled country of heavy 
vegetation are considerably greater than in more 
settled regions with a more temperate climate. 



• 27 

Thus Lord Curzon has said {op. cit., pp. 18-19) : 

"On the other hand the theoretical 
superiority of a mountain Frontier may be 
qualified by a number of considerations arising 
from its physical structure. Of course a range 
or ridge with a sharply defined crest is the best 
of all. But sometimes the mountain-barrier may 
be, not a ridge or even a range, but a tumbled 
mass of peaks and gorges, covering a zone many 
miles in width ( for instance, the breadth of the 
Himalayas north of Kashmir is little short of 
200 miles) . . . 

"In every mountain border, where the entire 
mountainous belt does not fall under the control 
of a single Power, the crest or water-divide is 
the best and fairest line of division ; for it is not 
exposed to physical change, it is always capable 
of identification, and no instruments are re- 
quired to fix it. But it is not without its pos- 
sible drawbacks, of which the most familiar is 
the well-known geographical fact that in the 
greatest mountain systems of the world, for 
instance, the Himalayas and the Andes, the 
water-divide is not identical with the highest 
crest, but is beyond it and at a lower eleva- 
tion. ..." 

Again, Prof. Camille Vallaux of the French Naval 
School has written {Le Sol et VBtat, pp. 380-381) : 

"Mountains seem at first sight more impos- 
ing as obstacles than rivers, and also more 
efficacious as protection, although the majority 
of chains and of mountain masses fashioned and 
half-destroyed by erosion, are cut up by a sort 



28 

of net-work (quadrillage) of transversal and 
longitudinal valleys which permit the passage at 
numerous points from one slope to the other. 
But where does the central axis of demarcation 
run which is suitable to serve as a precise politi- 
cal frontier? A close study of mountainous 
chains shows that it is almost impossible for 
physical reasons to determine this axis. The 
delimitators have the choice between the line of 
the separation of waters and the line of greatest 
altitudes which in general do not coincide : they 
almost always take the first. But the line of the 
separation of waters is subject to variation at 
the points where the erosion from down-stream 
upwards is most felt; it is subject to inde- 
cision on the high plateaux where the relief 
levels out and where the waters follow, accord- 
ing to the season, different directions; finally the 
survey of this line is extremely capricious and 
political necessities impose frequent correc- 
tions. . . . What to conclude from this, unless 
that mountain frontiers are very truly artificial 
frontiers, in the same manner as those which 
run invisible across the plains and which only 
posts and mile-stones indicate? Although inter- 
penetrations are rarer across the mountains than 
in the united plains, they have never lacked it: 
there are bonds of very ancient and singularly 
durable relations across the Alps and the 
Pyrenees; modern circulation, in piercing its 
tunnels and in constructing its roads, will more 
and more cause barriers to tumble, will multiply 
the points of contact and will entirely assimi- 
late mountainous frontiers to those of the 
plains." 



29 

The truth of the whole matter is that the science 
of geography teaches that every international frontier 
must be determined onMts special facts, respecting the 
national sentiments of the peoples affected, rather than 
by any theoretical and a priori consideration of the 
relative merits of the various types of frontiers. Mr. 
Dominian has happily expressed this truth in the fol- 
lowing passage {Frontiers of Language and Nation- 
ality, p. ?>?>?)) : 

"The preceding remarks should not be con- 
sidered as implying that a mountain, or a river, 
or even the sea are to be arbitrarily regarded as 
frontiers. Lines of water-parting deserve par- 
ticular mention as having provided satisfactory 
national borders in history. But in boundaries 
each case should be treated upon its own merits. 
There was a time when, in Cowper's words : 

7:^' Mountains interposed i 

Make enemies of nations who had else 
Like kindred drops been mingled into one. 

''And yet the passes of the Alps refute the 
poet's statement. Their uniting function event- 
ually overcame their estranging power. The 
easterly spread of French language over the 
Vosges concurs in the same trend of testimony. 
The imposing mass of the Urals is no more of 
a parting than are the Appalachians. To be 
pertinent, it will be necessary, in each instance, 
to consider the complex operations of natural 
laws and the process of fusing and building up 
of nationality brought about by their agency." 



30 



IV. 

THE GEOGRAPHICAL REASONS FOR THE MOUNTAIN 
LINE URGED BY COUNSEL FOR GUATEMALA, ARE NOT 
SUSTAINED BY THE FACTS; AND ON THESE, CORRECTLY 
APPRECIATED, THE LINE, SO FAR AS A MOUNTAIN 
FRONTIER SHOULD BE ADOPTED, OUGHT TO RUN 
ELSEWHERE. 

Mr. Anderson's Memorandum on the Economic 
Survey Report contains errors of fact or of apprecia- 
tion as to the mountain chain of the Merendon, Gal- 
linero, Grita, Espiritu Santo and Omoa, which would 
vitiate his arguments for location of the compromise 
line along it, even if his major premise — the ideal 
nature of a mountain frontier — were undisputed. 

It will be convenient, in pointing out and comment- 
ing upon these errors, to group them so as to follow the 
division of the frontier area into the districts adopted 
by the Report of the Economic Survey. These dis- 
tricts correspond to the sections adopted by the Mixed 
Boundary Commission which labored in pursuance of 
the treaty of 1895, except that the Mixed Boundary 
Commission was dissolved before it surveyed the third 
section. 

1. Mr. Anderson states that this mountain chain 
runs from the frontier of El Salvador to the Atlantic 
coast near the port of Omoa, supposing that not only 
does it touch, but also that it crosses, the Salvadorean 
frontier near the point designated as Pefia de Caya- 
guanca. He has failed to note that in all the modern 
maps, which in this case reflect the reality, the moun- 



31 

tain called Merendon figures as a part of the Sierra 
Madre which parts the waters that flow into the Atlan- 
tic Ocean and those reaching the Pacific and is in fact 
a continuation of the American Rocky Mountain divide. 
The Merendon Mountain, which runs parallel to the 
frontier of El Salvador and starts from the Guatema- 
lan frontier, from south to north, doubles westward 
approximately on the parallel of the Cerro de San 
Jeronimo, passes along it and along Cerro Obscuro 
and invades Guatemala. From the parallel of Cerro 
Obscuro begins the Sierra de Gallinero, Grita, etc., 
mentioned by Counsel for Guatemala. The Economic 
Survey in their Report confirm the accuracy of this 
observation (No. 9). 

2. The Sierra del Merendon does not, as intimated 
by Mr. Anderson, cut the frontier of El Salvador, but 
runs parallel to it, the valleys of the Rivers Lempa and 
Sumpul lying between them and also between said fron- 
tier and the Peiia de Cayaguanca. Consequently it 
would be materially impossible to trace the frontier as 
indicated by him. 

Moreover, Cerro Brujo, which is separated from 
the Sierra Madre by the valleys of the Rivers Lempa 
and Sesecapa and diverts their waters to the Pacific 
Ocean, is an indisputable boundary point. It has been 
recognized at all times as common to Honduras, Guate- 
mala and El Salvador, as was thus expressly declared 
in Minutes No. 5 of July 9, 1908, and No. 6 of the 16th 
of the same month and year, of the sessions of the 
Mixed Boundary Commission which labored on the 



32 

frontier under the treaty of 1895, and whose work was 
approved by article XVI of the Treaty of 1914. The 
fact was also recognized by the Economic Survey 
{Report, No. 9), in limiting their reconnaissance to the 
same region which the above Mixed Boundary Com- 
mission surveyed between Cerro Brujo and Cerro 
Obscuro. The latter mountain is for similar reasons 
an immutable boundary point (Minutes No. 17, of 
March 7, 1910. of the mixed Boundary Commission). 

Moreover, if the line were run along the Merendon 
mountain, it would place in Guatemala the very old 
town of Ocotepeque, which during the whole colonial 
epoch and since independence to the present day has 
been Honduranean, as well as the quite ancient villages 
of Sinuapa, Santa Fe, Concepcion Jute and Merendon. 
The Report of the Economic Survey (No. 140) con- 
firms the fact that in this first section of the frontier 
there is no conflict of land concessions made by the two 
Governments, because in reality there exist only grants, 
more or less ancient, made in Honduras; so that the 
present day line of possession, which has been actually 
surveyed, follows the limits of these concessions and 
has not given occasion for any disputes among the 
adjoining inhabitants. 

Accordingly, Mr. Anderson's pretension that the 
line should be run along the Sierra del Merendon, must 
be disregarded. 

3. Coming now to the second district of the Eco- 
nomic Survey Report: Honduras has proved with all 



33 

the concessions of lands granted by the ancient Prov- 
ince of Honduras, by the State of Honduras (during 
the Federation) or by the Republic, — extracted in 
printed volume III of the Honduranean Exhibits, — 
that she is the legitimate owner of the territory compre- 
hended to the left of the irregular Hne which runs from 
Cerro Obscuro to the junction of the quebradas of Las 
Vegas and Sururuin, passing over the Llano del Jicaro 
and Cerro del Suspiro de Tizamarte. This line is con- 
firmed by concessions of lands granted in Guatemala, 
bounding with those granted by Honduras, which are 
also extracted in the printed volume III above men- 
tioned. All of these concessions, as well as historical 
authorities like the History by Juarros and the 1844 
Instructions of Marure and Larreynaga and the official 
documents from colonial times, declare that the Copan 
Valley belongs to Honduras (see Brief for Honduras, 
point V). In this region there also exist the ancient 
towns of Copan and Santa Rita (alias Cachapa) and 
the more modern towns of Cabanas {alias Santa Bar- 
bara), Encarnacion (alias Playon) and San Jorge 
(alias Rincon de Jorge), and thirty-three villages or 
ranches, all of which have been, and actually are, Hon- 
duranean. In the region no town is organized as a 
municipality belonging to Guatemala; and there are 
only about seven villages or ranches that owe allegiance 
to Guatemala. The great majority of the inhabitants 
of the region — 5,400 according to the Economic Survey 
— are Honduraneans. 

In this district the Report of the Economic Survey 



34 

traced a line from Cerro del Mico or San Isidro to 
Cerro de Llano Grande, affirming that to the right are 
to be found only villages which Honduras governs, and 
that to the left of the line the villages are governed by 
Guatemala (Report, no. 33). This line is arbitrary, 
because it cuts across lands, titled before 1821 in Hon- 
duras, whose inhabitants still acknowledge her sover- 
eignty; but insofar as it insinuates a compromise line, 
it furnishes an argument against the adoption of the 
mountain line urged by Counsel for Guatemala, which 
runs about twenty-five kilometers further east and 
cuts that much more deeply into Honduranean terri- 
tory. 

If in this second district a mountain line were to be 
adopted as the compromise frontier, on the basis of 
the geographical arguments put forward by Mr. Ander- 
son that it furnishes the ideal frontier, then the Hon- 
orable Mediator should prefer and recommend in this 
region the Copan mountain as the boundary as far as 
the Motagua River. The valley of the Motagua River 
breaks the continuity of the Copan mountain with the 
range which on the other side of the river runs, under 
the name of the Sierra del Mico, in a northwesterly 
direction until it ends in Cape Three Points. 

On the basis of the argument for a mountain line as 
the ideal scientific frontier, which is so eloquently urged 
by Mr. Anderson, the Honorable Mediator should cer- 
tainly recommend the Copan mountain as far as the 
Motagua River. Such a line would work far less in- 
jury to vested Guatemalan rights, than would the other 



35 

line to Honduranean sovereignty. Moreover, unlike 
that line, it has the support of official documents, among 
others, the Guatemalan Instructions of 1844, which, as 
has been pointed out in the Brief for Honduras, have 
all the weight of an admission against interest. In 
their Instructions, Marure and Larreynaga wrote 
(Mediation Record, vol. II, pp. 252-253) : 

"This valley (the Copan) is the divisor be- 
tween Guatemala and Honduras, according to 
Father Juarros, vol. II, p. 153. . . . Along 
Copan there passes a cordillera, w^hich com- 
mences to the south of Mita, and which is com- 
monly called ^lerendon, and intersects the 
Motagua, and extends to the east of Port St. 
Thomas, to enter Cape Three Points called 
Punta de Castilla or Manavique. The dividing 
line between Honduras and Chiquimula strikes 
this mountain before it (the mountain) inter- 
sects the Motagua, the line passing through the 
north of the village or hamlet of Chucuyales, 
and it is a point which should be examined and 
marked out very scrupulously. This mountain, 
which the English and French maps call 'The 
Copan', and which is not marked continuously 
in that of Rivera, forms a landmark toward 
Sensenti, but not in the rest of its course, for 
which reason it is necessary that the com- 
missioners shall fix precisely the intervening 
section. 

"From the point at Chucuyales, following 
• the mountain to the Motagua, it forms a boun- 
dary, and the river to its mouth in the Bay of 
Omoa or Honduras. ..." 



36 

4. With respect to the third district, it cannot be 
disputed that upon geographical considerations and 
having regard for the present-day possession (but 
excluding all tortious occupation), the line after leav- 
ing the Copan Mountain near the confluence of the 
Managua River and the River Motagua should follow 
the latter stream to its mouth. 

If the Honorable Mediator should recommend 
either the Copan Mountain, the Copan River or the 
Managua River as the compromise frontier in the 
second and third districts, he could only reach the 
Sierra de Grita-Gallinero-Espiritu Santo-Omoa by cut- 
ting across country at a sharp angle and with an arti- 
ficial boundary which w^ould disregard both the line 
of ulti possidetis of 1821 and the present-day line of 
possession. As to the uti possidetis of 1821, the evi- 
dence submitted to him by the Honduranean Repre- 
sentative — it is compiled and evaluated in Point V of 
the Brief for Honduras — proves conclusively that the 
Copan valley lay entirely within Honduras at the close 
of the colonial era. As to the present-day line of 
possession, the Honorable Mediator may be referred to 
the Report of the Economic Survey (Nos. 109-116), 
with the request that he take into consideration the fact, 
as noted elsewhere in the present memorandum, that 
with the exception of Las Quebradas, the points occu- 
pied by Guatemala in this district, to the west of the 
Motagua River, have been seized by military force, 
notwithstanding the treaty of 1895 w^hich in legal effect 
required respect by the parties of the statu quo ante 



37 

pending a settlement of the frontier. Las Quebradas, 
the sole exception, was occupied by Guatemala at some 
time between 1882 and 1892. But even this occupation 
was tortious having taken place after the boundary- 
dispute had arisen and therefore must not be recog- 
nized by the Honorable Mediator, even in recommend- 
ing a compromise line. 



V. 

THE MOUNTAIN BOUNDARY NOW PROPOSED BY 
COUNSEL FOR GUATEMALA, SO FAR AS IT RESTS UPON 
THE TESTIMONY OF MAPS AND GEOGRAPHERS, HAS NO 
BETTER BASIS THAN A CARTOGRAPHICAL ERROR OF 
A GUATEMALAN GEOGRAPHER. 

For this conclusion Counsel for Honduras are in- 
debted to Dr. Williams. It is demonstrated in her Reply 
to Mr. Anderson's criticisms of her Cartographical and 
Geographical Report. Accordingly the Honorable Medi- 
ator is referred directly to her remarks in her Reply 
which is attached to the present memorandum {infra, 
pp. 100-107). 

Counsel for Honduras also are of opinion that Dr. 
Williams' Reply provides an adequate and convincing 
reply to Mr. Anderson's criticisms of her original Re- 
port and fortify the conclusions reached by her therein 
as to the effect and bearing of the geographical and 
cartographical evidence on the extent of Honduranean 
jurisdiction, both in the colonial epoch and thereafter. 

The arguments deduced by Counsel for Guatemala 
from the map published by Byrne in 1886, do not 



38 

deserve serious consideration. Without stressing the 
fact that this map has not been placed in evidence by 
the CTuatemalan Representative (who in this particular 
has been exigent in requiring the submission of the 
maps upon which Honduras has relied), it may be said 
that the official character of its author is not proven 
and that it has not been accepted by Honduras. In 
order that the map might be considered as evidence of 
an abandonment of sovereignty, Guatemala would have 
to produce an official act of the Honduranean Govern- 
ment approving it. Moreover, if the map referred to 
is the one with which the Honduranean Representative 
is acquainted, it does not designate as the frontier the 
Sierra of Omoa-Espiritu Santo-Grita-Gallinero, but 
rather a frontier supposed to lie to the west of the 
Copan Valley which approached rather the mountain 
described by Marure and Larreynaga in their Instruc- 
tions, with the difference that it does not end in the 
Motagua River, as they indicate, but near its mouth. 



VI. 

THE GUATEMALAN ARGUMENTS FOR THE LINE OF 
THE MERENDON, GALLINERO, GRITA, ESPIRITU SANTO 
AND OMOA MOUNTAINS, SO FAR AS BASED ON ECON- 
OMIC AND POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS, ARE OUT- 
WEIGHED BY THOSE WHICH MAY BE URGED IN BE- 
HALF OF HONDURAS. 

Counsel for Honduras propose to summarize the 
arguments of this character offered by Counsel for 
Guatemala and to refute them with like considerations 
favoring their client: 



39 

(1) Much weight is placed by Counsel for Guatemala upon 
the poor means of communication between the rest of Hon- 
duras and the disputed region, and the present-day fact that 
those with Guatemala are much easier. From this contrast, 
the consequence is deduced of the commercial dependency of 
the region on Guatemala and therefore of its manifest destiny 
as an appanage of this country. 

The first flaw to be noted in this argument is that 
Mr. Anderson proposes to include in Guatemala the dis- 
trict of Ocotepeque, which is separated from the rest of 
the region by the Sierra Madre. It would, therefore, 
logically follow that as this district undoubtedly has 
greater facilities for commerce with El Salvador, it 
should be annexed to this Republic. Moreover, since 
all of Honduras is mountainous country, with difficult 
communications, the argument would equally hold good 
for the loss of its independence and its partition among 
its neighbors. As regards the Ocotepeque region, Mr. 
Anderson's arguments admit of a true reductio ad 
absurdum. 

Thus, since communications and commerce of the 
first district, including Ocotepeque, are with El Sal- 
vador, along and across the Sumpul and Lempa Val- 
leys, the Guatemalan railway does not serve the dis- 
trict. 

As regards the second district and the southern part 
of the third district : it is true that at the present time 
they are nearer to the Guatemalan railway than to the 
Honduranean railway. But this would not now be the 
case if Guatemala had not, by military force, paralyzed 
the continuation of the Cuyamel Railroad. Honduras 



40 

has had, and still has, the intention of continuing this 
line up the Motagua Valley into the Copan region. In 
addition, the Cuyamel Fruit Company has a concession 
from Honduras to extend its line over the cordillera of 
Omoa, etc., and communicate the third district with the 
valley of the Chamelecon River, tying the district to the 
centre of Honduras. This net-work of railways will 
thus constitute the commercial artery of both the second 
and third districts, and will have for its outlet the Port 
of Omoa, which Mr. Anderson recognizes as excellent. 
Accordingly, on these same grounds of economic and 
political policy, Honduras needs, and cannot and ought 
not to renounce, her sovereignty over the Eastern slope 
of the Motagua Valley, which must serve as the road- 
bed of this railroad along the greater portion of its 
route. 

(2) It is argued by Mr. Anderson that Guatemala ought 
to have the region west of the mountain-chain under discus- 
sion, because she needs it for her political unity and in order 
to maintain her integrity. 

In order for the Honorable Mediator to accept this 
solution, he would have to favor solely the interests 
of Guatemala, without taking into account those of 
Honduras. This it is not difficult to demonstrate. 

Even if Guatemala had with perfect right con- 
structed her railway, Honduras would still need to con- 
clude and protect her railroad on the right bank of the 
Motagua River. Moreover, if Guatemala considers 
this river and her railway as her natural transportation 
route to the Atlantic coast and requires exclusive con- 



trol of the region for military and strategic purposes, 
Honduras also is entitled to the same argument with 
reference to the same river and her own railway. 

But the Counsel for Honduras are not agreed with 
Counsel for Guatemala, that such exclusive control is a 
necessity. There are many countries which have com- 
mon dominion over the rivers which separate them. 
For examples it is not necessary to go farther afield 
than Central America. Guatemala herself does not 
feel her integrity menaced, or her political and economic 
independence jeopardized, because she does not enjoy 
the exclusive dominion of the Paz River which sep- 
arates her from El Salvador, or of the River Usuma- 
cinta which separates her from Mexico. It would be 
unjust to attribute to Honduras any political ambi- 
tions, because she desires to conserve a territory which 
she has possessed during centuries ; and not to attribute 
such ambitions to the country which wishes to acquire 
the same territory simply because in very recent years 
she has come to believe that she needs it. 

Counsel for Guatemala, relying principally on the 
argument of her security, rejects rivers as a frontier 
line with Honduras, but only with Honduras ; and calls 
for the summit of the cordillera, because it is easier to 
defend. The answer is that Guatemala need not fear 
aggression on the part of Honduras. It is the weaker 
and less populated country and on various occasions it 
has suffered aggressions from Guatemala. But as con- 
flicts in Central America have not been wars of con- 
quest, the victor has not demanded territorial compen- 



42 

sations. Even the last war waged by Guatemala on 
Honduras in 1876 involved no boundary question, 
although it is true that at that time the dispute was 
reduced to a narrow area in the populous region; and 
in the region of the Motagua River there was no ques- 
tion, since the river was recognized as the boundary 
de facto. These antecedents, taken by themselves, 
would give Honduras the right to reject the boundary 
now concretely proposed by Counsel for- Guatemala; 
since once her powerful neighbor were placed on the 
summit of the cordillera, she could dominate the passes, 
fortify them in her favor and descend upon Honduras 
at will. On the other hand, with the frontier fixed in 
the lower area of the river, the Honduraneans could 
detain the invaders at the foot of the mountains and 
in case of necessity fall back upon the mountain passes. 
Counsel for Honduras regret urging these con- 
siderations, which are forced upon them by the other 
party. They would have preferred to discuss this 
frontier question as a purely legal question, in the 
manner in which such disputes are settled among the 
states of our own Federal Union. 

(3) Counsel for Guatemala argues that because the dis- 
puted region is thinly populated — not exceeding ten persons 
to the square mile — it may be delivered to Guatemala, without 
serious injury to Honduras. 

This fact gives no preferential right to either of the 
parties. Moreover, Honduras denies, as intimated by 
Mr, Anderson, that the inhabitants would prefer to 
belong to Guatemala. Counsel for Guatemala affirms 



43 

the fact, without any basis therefor in the Economic 
Survey Report. The Survey Hmited themselves to re- 
porting the statement of the inhabitants of both coun- 
tries that they greatly desired to see the boundary ques- 
tion settled amicably — a very natural desire because 
they have suffered most the prejudice which the bound- 
ary disputes have entailed. Mr. Anderson failed to add 
that there was no doubt in the minds of the inhabitants 
as to where the frontier runs ; and, be it noted, that it is 
to be found in a region far removed from the Cordillera 
proposed by him. Otherwise the Economic Survey 
could not have stated that in the whole disputed region 
the conflicting area of land concessions granted by the 
respective Governments totalled less than 178 square 
miles {Report, no. 140). 

(4) Counsel for Guatemala bases his claim to the terri- 
tory in the lower portion of the disputed region, on the fact 
that the greater area of land concessions has been granted by 
Guatemala. 

In thus arguing, Counsel forgets that on various 
occasions the Guatemalan Representative has declared, 
— and that he has echoed the declaration in his Memo- 
randum, — that in this Mediation possession de facto 
must have no weight as against strict legal right, even 
though such possession should have in its favor the 
duration of centuries; and this declaration has been 
accepted by Honduras, at least for the period since 
1821, the date indicated by the treaty of 1914 as the 
year of uti possidetis. He also overlooks the fact that 
the major number of the concessions granted by Guate- 



44 

mala have been granted ad hoc, since the conferences 
on the frontier from 1908 to 1910. Counsel for Hon- 
duras are not acquainted with the titles issued by Guate- 
mala and cannot discuss them because they have not 
been filed in these proceedings by the Guatemalan Rep- 
resentative. Accordingly, so far as the poHtico- 
economic arguments of Counsel for Guatemala are 
based upon these titles, they should not be considered 
by the Honorable Mediator. 

On the other hand, these same arguments are avail- 
able for Honduras, since her representatives have pro- 
duced duly certified copies of the land titles granted 
within her territory, and in addition have for the con- 
venience of the Mediator filed a printed volume wherein 
the titles are extracted.* 

The Economic Survey were unable to take note of 
all the land concessions granted by the two countries 
{Report, no. 140). Since no representative of Hon- 
duras accompanied the Mission except in the last few 
days, it may well be that the Guatemalan engineers 
have exhibited a greater number of concessions in the 
disputed region. This would result, because, as Coun- 
sel for Honduras are informed, instead of respecting 
the status quo ante, pending adjustment of the dispute, 
Guatemala made haste, since 1895 and mostly in the 

♦Certified copies of extracts from the land titles and of other 
documentary evidence submitted by Honduras, also various original 
documents, are to be found in a box delivered, with its key, to the 
State Department. The originals of the most ancient titles are also 
deposited in a Washington vault, subject to the order of the Repre- 
sentative of Honduras, li it is desired, he is prepared to submit 
them to the Honorable Mediator. 



45 

year 1911, to grant numerous concessions in the third 
district, undoubtedly proceeding on the theory that such 
grants would be considered as indicia of occupation and 
thus improve her claim to the region. 

In striking contrast, Honduras has, since the sign- 
ing of the Boundary treaty of 1895, in general abstained 
from granting new concessions in the region. Never- 
theless, there are pending in the respective Land Office 
of Honduras many applications for concessions in the 
third district upon which no grants have been issued, 
notwithstanding the fact that some of the lands applied 
for have been actually surveyed. 

(5) Counsel for Guatemala endeavors to capitalize the 
recent occupation of certain points in the disputed region by 
Guatemalan forces. 

In the Economic Survey Report (nos. 114, 115, 
116) are mentioned the military posts which Guate- 
mala and Honduras have in the lower portion of the 
Motagua Valley, that is, from the River Morja. To 
judge from the situation at the end of 1918 — as it ap- 
pears in data which the Representative of Honduras 
presented to the Honorable Mediator in requesting the 
retirement of forces introduced by Guatemala in recent 
years — the presence of Guatemalan soldiers in the terri- 
tory to the East of the Motagua River, instead of found- 
ing a right thereto, shows the system which Guatemala 
has adopted to achieve de facto occupation, notwith- 
standing that such occupation is vitiated by the double 
defect that it has been effected by violence and during 
the operation of treaties which preserve the status quo 



46 

ante, and, as Counsel for Honduras are informed dur- 
ing the course of the present mediation. Dr. Bonilla, 
in his note of December 11, 1918, answering the Honor- 
able Mediator's proposal 'for the despatch of a technical 
commission, renewed his insistence that the Guatemalan 
troops be withdrawn, in order that the constant danger 
of armed conflict created by the continuance of these 
troops might be avoided {Mediation Record, vol. H, p. 
591). 

(6) Counsel for Guatemala argues that the interests of 
the Cuyamel Fruit Company in the disputed region are not 
Honduranean but American, and therefore should not be 
taken into consideration. 

Counsel for Honduras are astonished that this 
argument should be put forward, because it applies 
with equal force to the interests of the United Fruit 
Company and to the interests of the Guatemalan Rail- 
way. Both of these enterprises are entirely American 
in respect of capital and management and, what is 
more, they are the only enterprises which operate under 
Guatemalan auspices in the valley of the Motagua. 

Moreover, there is a difference in favor of the 
Cuyamel Fruit Company. It carries on operations 
only in Honduras, and therefore would have no motive 
to desire that its properties, either in whole or in part, 
should pass to Guatemalan sovereignty. In contrast, 
the United Fruit Company has properties in both coun- 
tries, with the further circumstance that those in Hon- 
duras are more important than those in Guatemala and 



47 

have a better future. Accordingly, it should be indif- 
ferent to this company what portion of its properties 
should remain in the one country or in the other. 

While it is true that the Guyamel Fruit 'Company 
was organized under this name in 1912, its operations 
date from 1902 when a concession was granted by Hon- 
duras to a third person acting for the same interests. 
In addition, among the lands exploited by the Cuyamel 
Fruit Company is to be found the Hacienda of Cuya- 
mel, surveyed in Honduras during the epoch of the Cen- 
tral American Federation, which extends as far as the 
old mouth of the Motagua River. This Hacienda was 
recognized by the Oidor Rodesno in 1770 as one which 
belonged to the Spanish Crown, comprehended in the 
jurisdiction of Omoa (Honduranean Exh. VH). The 
Hacienda was also the object of a Honduranean deed 
of sale in 1822, wherein it appears that the land was 
located in the same jurisdiction (Honduranean Exh. 
XXV, No. 20). 

The notes exchanged by the American Charge 
d' Affaires with the Government of Guatemala, were 
not known to the Representative of Honduras until he 
learned of their existence from the Memorandum of 
Counsel for Guatemala. The notes could be taken to 
show only that the Government of Guatemala under- 
took to suspend the further operations of the United 
Fruit Company, — an undertaking which, the Honor- 
able Mediator will note, the Guatemalan Government 
has not fulfilled. On the contrary, it has taken steps 
to paralyze the operations of the Cuyamel Fruit Com- 



48 

pany, even to the extent of employing armed force. 
The poHcy of Honduras in this respect has been con- 
sistently to the contrary, since her Government has 
believed that the development of the disputed region 
should not be impeded. Honduras has taken the view, 
in accordance with international law and the 1914 
treaty, that such development could not alter the vested 
rights of either party, and that the territory thus 
improved would in the sequel pass to the sovereignty of 
that Government which should prove to be entitled 
thereto ; and that the title, and even the simple posses- 
sion, of the interested concessionaries, would be 
respected to the extent that the concessionaries should 
have the territory under cultivation or should other- 
wise have permanently improved them (infra, pp. 60- 
61). 

(7) It is not correct to state, as is assured by Counsel for 
Guatemala, that Honduras has no political, commercial or 
economic interests of importance in the region between the 
mountains and the Motagua River. 

With respect to the first and second districts, Coun- 
sel for Honduras have already had occasion to state 
what are the Honduranean interests of this character 
(Point IV above). 

With respect to the third district, the Honorable 
Mediator should note that there is to be found in it the 
town of El Paraiso, which was erected by Honduras 
into a municipality before the treaty of 1895; and that 
upon this municipality are dependent the villages of 
Agua Buena, Agua Caliente, Achotes, Arcos, Caiias, 



49 

Chachagualia, Chapulco, Cisne, Desmontes, Managua, 
Morrito, Navedad (Los Ranches), Piedras Gordas and 
other villages and ranches, among them one village 
whose dwellings were burned by the Guatemalans 
after the Economic Survey returned from their mission. 
In this region are also to be found the ancient Hon- 
duranean Port and Municipality of Omoa and the 
Municipality of Cuyamel, together with the ranches 
which have grown up along the railway line that runs 
from Omoa to Rio Nuevo. 

The Honorable Mediator is also requested in this 
connection to refer to the Brief for Honduras, section 
5 of Point VI (Mediation Record, vol. II, pp. 462-463), 
in which Counsel for Honduras discussed the diplo- 
matic exchanges between Guatemala and Honduras 
which resulted in the treaty of 1895. Here he will 
find reference not only to El Paraiso and some of the 
villages above mentioned, and to the Honduranean 
towns of Santa Cruz and Los Chajales and the villages 
of Tapesco and El Chorro, but also the concession of 
3,000 mansanas (5,250 acres) granted by the Hon- 
duranean Government in October, 1893, to a Dutch 
Company. This concession, called "La Esperanza", on 
which the Dutch Company had a tobacco plantation, 
is located between the Jubuco and Morja Rivers, front- 
ing on the latter river. It is indicated on the map sub- 
mitted by Honduras, and also on those prepared by the 
Economic Survey. 

In this region Guatemala has only the villages and 
ranches which it has been progressively seizing, or 
which have been installed on unoccupied land by Guate- 



50 

malans who as such have declared in favor of submis- 
sion to their country of origin. The Honorable Media- 
tor should also note that all of these Guatemalan vil- 
lages and ranches have sprung up since the treaty of 
1895, with the sole exception of Las Quebradas, which 
Guatemala had occupied previously, that is, at some 
time between 1882 and 1892. Las Quebradas is not 
mentioned in the electoral census published by Guate- 
mala in 1882 {Guatemala: Armies Bstadisficas) ; but 
is claimed for the first time in 1892, by the Guate- 
mala Statistical Office {Guatemala: Demarcacion 
Politica). In this connection the Honorable Medi- 
ator is asked to recall the circumstance, which ap- 
pears in the Honduranean evidence, that only in 1863 
did Guatemala seize by armed force the territory be- 
tween the Motagua River and Lake Izabal, removing 
the authorities of four Honduranean villages located 
near the Lake. It further appears from the evidence 
submitted by Honduras that at that time Guatemala 
did not even possess the right bank of the River 
Motagua and that it could have nothing on the left 
bank. The Mediator is referred to Honduranean Ex- 
hibits XVII (a), XVII {b), no. 7, XXI and XXV, 
no. 22. 

Accordingly, it is not true that Honduras in this 
region has no interests except those of the Cuyamel 
Fruit Company. On the other hand, Guatemala has 
no other interests in this region than those represented 
by the United Fruit Company, which, besides, com- 
menced operations on the right bank of the Motagua 



51 

River long after Honduras had granted the original 
concession which the Cuyamel Fruit Company is ex- 
ploiting. Honduras did not disturb these operations of 
the United Fruit Company, because, as already related, 
it did not believe that they would prejudice its 
sovereignty to the region, and because since 1894 she 
had protested in diplomatic notes addressed to Guate- 
mala that she considered as indisputably hers the ter- 
ritory on the eastern bank of the IMotagua River from 
the mouth of the Managua River. 



VII. 

IN RECOMMENDING A COMPROMISE BOUNDARY THE 
HONORABLE MEDIATOR SHOULD SO FAR AS POSSIBLE 
RESPECT THE LINE OF UTI POSSIDETIS OF 1821; AND 
INSOFAR AS HE SHOULD DEEM IT EXPEDIENT TO 
DEPART FROM THIS LINE, HE SHOULD DISREGARD ALL 
PRESENT-DAY OCCUPATIONS VERIFIED TORTIOUSLY 
OR SINCE THE DISPUTE OVER THE TERRITORY AROSE, 
ALWAYS MAKING PROVISION FOR RECIPROCAL EQUI- 
TABLE COMPENSATIONS. 

Counsel for Honduras have hereinabove had occa- 
sion to refer to the insistence of the Guatemalan 
Representative and of his Counsel that the Honorable 
Mediator make his recommendations on the basis of 
the strict uti possidetis juris of 1821 ; and to show that 
this step is logically necessary in order that he may 
with justice to both parties, in recommending a com- 
promise line, make proper use of his discretion as a 
Mediator in applying the principle of equitable com- 



52 

pensations, which their Representatives have conferred 
upon him in pursuance of article VII of the 1914 
treaty (point II above). 

It is now proposed to discuss the actual problem 
of the Honorable Mediator in recommending a definite 
compromise frontier, doing so in the light of the prin- 
ciples of international law which are applicable and 
of the topography and politico-economic conditions of 
the disputed region as developed hereinabove. 

At the outset Counsel for Honduras desire to point 
out that the deductions made by Mr. Anderson from 
his quotation of the boundary recitals contained in the 
Honduranean Constitution of 1839 and from his cita- 
tions of like provisions in the subsequent Constitutions 
of Honduras, by no means dispose of the Honduranean 
claim to the territory west of the Motagua River, upon 
the principle of the ufi possidetis juris of 1821. If the 
coast region between the Alcaldia Mayor of Verapaz, 
Golfo Dulce and Belize was unorganized territory in the 
closing years of the colonial epoch under the jurisdic- 
tion of the Intendente of Honduras (see the evidence 
collected in point VII of their Brief), then the most 
that these provisions of the Honduranean Constitutions 
could be taken to waive, would be the claim of Hon- 
duras to the coast region west of Golfo Dulce (or Lake 
Izabal) and as far as the frontier with British Hon- 
duras. The recital in the early Honduranean Consti- 
tutions that the Republic was bounded ''on the west by 
Guatemala" would still hold true. Honduras has, in 
this Mediation, offered evidence from Guatemalan 



53 

sources that as late as 1863 Honduras authorities were 
governing four villages near Lake Izabal (H. Note of 
August 27, 1918, Mediation Record, vol. I, pp. 226- 
227). If this declaration in the early Honduranean 
Constitutions, in Mr. Anderson's words, ''finally and 
conclusively disposes of any claim on the part of Hon- 
duras to jurisdiction as far as Belize", like weight 
must be given to the declaration in the Constitutions 
and enabling laws of Guatemala as disposing of any 
claim by Guatemala to the region east of the Motagua 
River (see Brief for Honduras, Mediation Record, vol. 
n, pp. 411-413). 

In their Brief for Honduras Counsel have referred 
to the rules of international law regarding the non- 
prescription of litigious territory and the preservation 
therein of the status quo ante pending settlement of the 
dispute; and they have shown, in the light of the 
boundary treaties of 1845, 1895 and 1914 that the 
frontier region between the two countries has mean- 
while been clearly in litigation (Mediation Record, vol; 
II, p. 417). 

Strictly speaking, the rules of international law 
regarding the acquisition of title to territory by pre- 
scriptive occupation have no application to the Amer- 
ican continents. Here there is no territory which may 
be regarded as res mdlius and therefore open to pre- 
scription through adverse possession running over a 
term of years; and therefore the principle which has 
been elaborated by European publicists for the partition 
of Africa and parts of Asia and Oceania, can properly 



54 

have no application. The point has been cogently 
expressed by Don Alejandro Alvarez, Professor of 
Law in the University of Chile {Revue Gen. de Droit 
Intern. Public, vol. X, pp. 652-653) : 

"The difliculties between European States 
concerning their colonial possessions relate, in 
the majority of cases, to territories which con- 
stitute res nnllius, with reference to which occu- 
pation is not only permitted, but even confers 
rights of which it is necessary to take account. 
The titles of these States for the delimitation of 
the frontiers of their possessions, of their zones 
of protectorate or of their hinterland, derive in 
effect from occupation, which is a purely 
material fact, and not from an anterior title. 
They therefore themselves create their titles, and 
thus, properly speaking, there should be no ques- 
tion of litigious zones by virtue of titles pro- 
duced by two or more States, as this occurs in 
America. From this it results that the conflicts 
between these nations relative to the occupations 
of territory, however acute they may be, are 
settled by conventions. And these conventions, 
the number of which is great, fix the frontier in 
a precise fashion; because these States, if they 
have to make the delimitation of unexplored 
territories, realize it by means of an ideal line 
determined according to the latitude and longi- 
tude. Nothing of this sort takes place in 
America. We have said elsewhere {Diplomatic 
History of the American Republics and the Con- 
ference of Mexico, pp. 14 and 28) that, accord- 
ing to the Monroe Doctrine, tacitly accepted by 



55 

the Latin- American States, one should consider 
the American continent as constituting a unity, 
belonging entirely to the States actually existing 
in America ; whence it follows that there should 
be no question there of vacant territories: all, 
even those which are still unexplored, must be 
reputed as occupied and to belong to one 
sovereign and independent State. One, there- 
fore, cannot speak in America of the acquisition 
of territories by occupation, much less of a pro- 
tectorate or hinterland." 

Alvarez then goes on to say that the American 
states are almost never in accord as to the extent of 
their domains, that each, in order to pretend against 
the other to the possessions of vast lands which it 
occupies or which are unoccupied, relies upon the uti 
possidetis of the colonial "epoch or upon a boundary 
treaty, made generally without an exact knowledge of 
the territory claimed. It is thus at the present day 
that, on the subject of disputed territories, arise in 
America the questions, first, of ascertaining which of 
the two States in litigation is the exclusive sovereign 
of the litigious portion ; and second, of determining the 
respective rights and duties of the States in the litigious 
zone during the pendency of the dispute (Ibid, p. 653). 
He then proceeds to define these rights and duties, 
postulating three possible situations: (1) Neither of 
the States is in possession of the disputed territory, at 
least not in a sufficient fashion; (2) both States are in 
possession; and (3) one of the States is in possession. 



56 

In the first situation Ah-arcz applies the following 
rule {Ibid, 655-656): 

"The rule which is imposed in this first 
hypothesis, is that the States should abstain 
reciprocally from all acts of sovereignty, even 
necessary acts, unless the exercise of these acts 
by one of them does not injure the interests of 
the other. The reason is simple. To permit 
one of the two States to exercise on the con- 
tested domain an act of sovereignty, would be 
to ignore the pretensions of the other State to 
this domain; would be to pre-judge the solu- 
tion of the litigation in favor of the first, by 
placing the second State in a situation of in- 
feriority as regards the territory; would be, in 
fine, to tolerate on the part of one State with 
regard to the other a veritable provocation. 

''But, as we have said, an exception should 
be made to this rule for the necessary acts of 
sovereignty which, by their nature, are not 
susceptible of injuring the rights of the other 
State. And this exception justifies itself: such 
a necessary act of sovereignty could not be a 
motive for complaint for this other State, be- 
cause an act of this sort is as well in its interest 
as in that of the State which exercises it, and 
the act does not place it in a condition of in- 
feriority. 

"Let us apply this double principle. It will 
follow therefrom, first, that each one of the 
States should abstain from occupying in any 
manner the disputed territory, from granting 
concessions therein, from founding cities, from 
raising fortresses, upon penalty of the annul- 



57 

ment of the concessions or the demolition of the 
works if the other State demands it. In effect, 
despite their utility, these are not acts of 
sovereignty which it is lawful to accomplish. 

"But in the second place and inversely, it is 
permissible for a State to exercise the police 
power, to see to the maintenance of order and 
of hygiene in the litigious zone . . ." 

In the present case, this first situation discussed by 
Alvarez does not exist, since all of the region in dis- 
pute has been in the possession of one or other of the 
parties. 

In the second hypothesis — where both disputant 
States are in possession — Alvarez states the rule to be : 

"In this hypothesis, when each one of the 
two States has in good faith made occupations 
of territory which in the sequel give rise to diffi- 
culties, the one and the other should respect the 
acts of sovereignty respectively accomplished 
upon the litigious territory before the birth of 
the litigation. The reason is that here we have 
a case of a possession in good faith which it 
was not possible to alter. But, once the conflict 
has been declared, each should abstain from new 
acts of sovereignty in the contested zone, as 
in the first case which we have indicated. In 
consequence, if cities have been founded, or 
works effected upon the territory by one of the 
States before the litigation, they should be main- 
tained, without right on the part of the other 
State to intervene in the administration of these 
cities or to demand the demolition of these 
works." 



58 

In the present case, this second situation discussed 
by Alvarez applies to the region between the Motagua 
River and Lake Izabal. The coast along the Gulf of 
Amatique and the territory in the interior to the north 
of Lake Izabal passed into the possession of Guatemala, 
in the years immediately following Independence, in cir- 
cumstances as to which it has been impossible to pro- 
duce evidence. It was only in very recent years that 
Guatemala constructed in this region Puerto Barrios 
and the appurtenant Railway. It has already been 
noted hereinabove that Honduras exercised jurisdic- 
tion over the region near Lake Izabal until her authori- 
ties were removed in 1863 by the military forces of 
Guatemala. 

In the third hypothesis — where one of the disputant 
States is in possession — Alvarez defines the rule as 
f ollow' s : 

"In this case it is the State in possession of 
the territory, become litigious, which should 
there exercise the entire sovereignty, to the 
exclusion of the claimant State. The former, 
in effect, already exercises the sovereignty: to 
admit that the mere arising of the litigation 
could embarrass its action, would be to place 
it in an unfavorable condition by pre-judging in 
some degree the solution in favor of the claim- 
ant State. If the State in possession should not 
continue to exercise its sovereignty, the inter- 
national situation of the populations of the liti- 
gious territory w^ould moreover be quite 
abnormal. All that the claimant State can and 
ought to exact in this hypothesis, is that the 



59 

other State should not accomplish any act of 
a nature to injure its rights . . . 

"There is another question that, in order to 
be complete, we must yet consider. This is that 
of the rights which can appertain to a State 
which has founded cities or constructed works 
upon the territory which, through the arbitral 
award, is found to be returned to the other liti- 
gant State. In this question as in the preceding, 
it is only possible to construct a theory by hav- 
ing recourse to the principles of international 
law. 

"One could not say here that the territory 
is annexed to one of the States, because the 
award has had no other effect than to decide 
to which of the two it belonged. \\^hence it 
must be admitted that the works have been 
effected without right by the State which has 
lost. But ought not this State to have the right 
to a certain compensation for the improvements 
with which it has endowed the litigious terri- 
tory. Apart from every question of the nation- 
ality of the inhabitants, the difficulty does not 
cease to be delicate and it does not seem ever to 
have been studied by the authors of the law of 
nations. It is, in our opinion, impossible to 
apply to this difficulty the theory of the improve- 
ments made by a possessor of good faith, or that 
of the quasi-contract of enrichment without 
cause, because these are theories of pure civil 
law. Here is how, according to us, the difficulty 
should be resolved. If the arbitrator has dis- 
cretionary powers {le pouvoir d'amiahle com- 
positeur), he should, in the award itself where- 



60 

by he transmits the territory to one of the States, 
accord to the other an indemnity equivalent to 
the expenses incurred by him, which indemnity 
moreover may be settled in money or by the adju- 
dication of a portion of the territory itself . . ." 

This third situation applies in the present instance 
to the region which lies to the south and east of the 
Motagua River. Honduras possessed the region from 
colonial times and continued to occupy it exclusively 
for many years after the treaty of 1845. 

Counsel for Honduras feel that they are justified 
in quoting extensively from the monograph of Prof. 
Alvarez, because it contains the most complete exposi- 
tion of the rules of international law, known to them, 
which are applicable to the present mediation. The 
rules thus formulated have received the approval of 
European publicists (e. g., Moulin, *%' Affaire du 
Territoire d'Acre", Revue de Droit Intern. Public, vol. 
XI, pp. 181, 184). Moreover, they obviously have a 
very direct bearing upon the solution of the problem of 
the Honorable Mediator in the present case. Thus 
they indicate that to the extent that either Guatemala 
or Honduras has been in undisputed possession of any 
portion of the region since a period antedating the dis- 
pute, such possession should be recognized by an arbi- 
trator enjoying discretionary powers — this being the 
situation of the present Mediator by express assent of 
counsel for Guatemala. They ' further indicate that 
Guatemala, to the extent that she has forcibly occu- 
pied, or granted concessions for the exploitation of, 



61 

any portion of the disputed region not in her exclusive 
possession from a date anterior to the arising of the 
dispute, has attempted to pre-judge the solution of the 
case and should not be permitted to profit by the act. 
Thus the Guatemalan authorities must vacate Las Que- 
bradas; and the United Fruit Company and other con- 
cessionaires as to their concessions acquired over this 
region from Guatemala, as well as Guatemalan citi- 
zens or others who have squatted upon lands therein, 
must, if they are to be permitted to remain, recognize 
the sovereignty of Honduras. Furthermore, Guate- 
mala will not, upon surrender of its claim to the region, 
be entitled to any money indemnity, because it has 
been put to no expense in connection with these private 
enterprises, to say nothing of the fact that the occu- 
pation here under discussion was countenanced by 
Guatemala, during the time when Honduras had 
peaceful and acknowledged exclusive possession of this 
territory which only subsequently became litigious. 

It is appropriate here to remind the Honorable 
Mediator, that the treaty of 1914, by its articles VI 
and VII, expressly adopted these principles of inter- 
national law, for application to the settlement of the 
present dispute. 

In the older literature, and doubly valuable by 
reason of the fact that they were formulated for the 
demarcation of the frontier under dispute in the present 
mediation and that they were prepared on behalf of 
Guatemala, exist the Instructions of Marure and 
Larreynaga. It is not necessary to quote their Instruc- 



62 

tions for the section of the frontier between the com- 
mon boundary of the two parties with El Salvador. 
That section has been actually delimited by the Mixed 
Boundary Commission working in 1908-1910 and their 
work was approved by Article XVI of the 1914 
treaty, — the criticism of Dr. Toledo Herrarte to the 
contrary notwithstanding. On the remaining sections 
of the frontier, the Honorable Mediator may profitably 
consult the following significant remarks of these 
lustntctioiis (Mediation Record, vol. I, pp. 249-250) : 

"The boundaries of the bishopric of Hon- 
duras, and those of any other, are well known, 
as every town, valley, hamlet, estate and farm 
knows w^here it must go for the administration 
of the sacraments, for its marriages, baptisms, 
interments, attendance at church, tithes, first 
fruits and other religious obligations, and know- 
ing this one knows the political boundaries, 
which are the same as the ecclesiastical. The 
only ones respecting which there might be a 
doubt are the places in between and unpopu- 
lated, which might lie between two bishoprics, 
but Law 3, T. 7, L. 1 of the Indies, decides the 
question. It provides that dioceses shall have 
a territory with a radius of 15 leagues, and 
that if any should lie between them it should 
be divided in half. . . . 

"This rule of dividing in the middle unculti- 
vated and unpopulated lands has its exceptions, 
as have all general rules. One exception is that 
if the residents are agreed in recognizing a 
specified boundary, that shall be respected as the 
true one and not a new one, because the ancient 



63 

one is always the best, because it is established 
by time, in which case, although such boundary 
should not fall in the exact center of the terri- 
tory to be divided, it is nevertheless to be pre- 
ferred. The agreement of the residents, it is 
understood, is that of past generations, tacit or 
express, or by free acts occurring once or re- 
peated, proved by science, by ancient books, 
writings which have not been litigated, and even 
by poets. The Greeks and their neighbors used 
to prove their boundaries by Homer. Tradi- 
tion (fama) is good proof, as decided in ch. 13 
of the Decretales, Title 'De probatio', ex- 
plained by its commentator Manuel Gonzales. 
In this matter reasoning is admitted in evidence, 
which thing is not admissible in other judicial 
suits. Another exception is where a permanent 
river lies in between, or a mountain range, 
hills or ravines, which are the best natural 
boundaries, which none can question, change, or 
remove, and which seem to have been fixed by 
Nature, and when there are such even though 
they are not in the very middle, they should be 
selected even though one of the parties should 
lose some territory, because it is justly permitted 
in this case to the surveyors and experts to give 
and take from one or the other of the parties." 

Further along Marure and Larreynaga recommend 
{Ihid, pp. 251-252): 

"There oral information will be taken of the 
most reputable residents that should be found, 
as to which is the boundary between the two 
States, known and reputed as such, and they 



64 

shall be asked where did they receive the admin- 
istration of the sacraments and of justice, be- 
cause these two points must establish the rule, 
and in case they vary they shall state cases and 
facts. If they should agree, and also the two 
commissioners, that boundary will be considered 
as fixed. This shall be understood in the case 
that residents of places on both sides of the 
frontier shall have been examined, or if that 
should not be possible, when the commissioners 
shall have arrived at a decision as to what is 
the truth. If the boundary reputed to be such 
should be a range of mountains, hills or hillock 
of a hill or highland, height or some large prom- 
inent river, or a deep stream or ravine, they shall 
be selected preferably even though they do not 
run in the very center. But if it should be level 
land in which there are none of these monu- 
ments, there shall be taken the middle distance 
between the two border towns, one from each 
State . . . The important thing is to fix 
and set out well and most precisely the first 
monument, because upon it will depend in great 
part the other ones and nearly all of the opera- 
tions to such an extent that with the first line 
at times one can ascertain the series of other 
lines. One line determines the others, say Gre- 
gorio Lopez (GL 8, L. 10, Tit. 15, p. 6). So 
that the first point having been fixed at one end 
and knowing as it is known that the other end 
is the mouth of the Motagua, a straight line 
could be drawn which would form the entire 
boundary in case the intervening points should 
not be known. The investigation having been 



65 

made as previously stated, a record of it shall 
be made by writing it in a book which shall be 
carried for that purpose, wherein there shall be 
noted from day to day the progress that may be 
made in the manner of a legal proceeding, as 
was done by the ecclesiastical visitors as bishops, 
and intendentes magistrates in the visits which 
they used to make; and all the more should the 
commissioners do so now, because this operation 
is to decide many doubts which in the future, 
one or two hundred or more years from now, 
when the present and succeeding generation 
shall have passed away, will rise upon the ruins 
of time, which swallows up everything. Hon- 
duras, perhaps, in days to come, will grow so 
much that it will no longer fit within its boun- 
daries, and Guatemala may want to increase its 
present boundaries. 

"In the above manner you shall continue 
successively along the frontier line between 
State and State, seeking on one side and the 
other either a village or a hamlet or an estate 
marking the division. A sketch or draft of a 
plan shall be prepared wherein there shall be 
noted daily the observations in order to make 
the final copy subsequently . . ." 

In this aspect of his labors, the Honorable Media- 
tor also has the valuable data and recommendations 
provided by the Report of the Economic Survey, with 
which Honduras is in accord, subject to the qualifica- 
tions herein expressed. 



66 



VIII. 

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS TO BE TAKEN INTO AC- 
COUNT BY THE HONORABLE MEDIATOR IN HIS RECOM- 
MENDATION OF A COMPROMISE LINE. 

In the light of the observations set forth herein- 
above, Counsel for Honduras, with the approval of her 
Representative, submit to the Honorable Mediator the 
following considerations : 

1. It has been the common understanding between 
Counsel of the parties, as well as between the respective 
Representatives of the two countries, that this case 
must be decided according to the iifi possidetis of 1821, 
de jure and not de facto. It follows that the Honorable 
Mediator should, according to that rule, ascertain the 
line which in his judgment must have divided the two 
countries at the time of their emancipation from the 
Spanish Crown. Counsel for Honduras entertain the 
hope that to this end the Mediator will begin by exam- 
ining the cedillas of 1563 and 1564, and will conclude 
therefrom that they do not sustain Guatemala's claim 
to the Ulua River-Fonseca Gulf line; that upon the 
evidence submitted by Honduras, the ccditla of 1563 
was repealed by that of 1564, or if not, that it was 
necessarily derogated by later cedillas of the Spanish 
Crown produced by Honduras, — at least by those of 
1791 and 1818, if not by the other legislative acts of the 
King of Spain; that Honduras upon achieving inde- 
pendence inherited the jurisdiction of her Governor- 
Intendente over the unorganized coastal territory east 



67 

of Golfo Duke (Lake Izabal) as far as Belize; that 
Guatemala never for an instant prior to 1821 possessed 
the region east of the Motagua River and up to Golfo 
Dulce, as Honduras had been in possession of it; and 
that the Guatemala occupation up to the Motagua River 
dates from very recent years. 

2. If the Honorable Mediator should adopt the sys- 
tem followed by the Mixed Boundary Commission in 
1908-1910, and that of the Economic Survey in 1919, 
of dividing the disputed territory into sections or dis- 
tricts, he should commence by determining as his start- 
ing point, Cerro Brujo, — the common boundary-point 
of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, — and Cerro 
Obscuro as the terminus of the first district. The 
latter point, with an inappreciable difference, was 
accepted by the Mixed Commission, as a boundary 
point between Guatemala and Honduras. Then in 
order to fix the de jure line connecting these two points, 
the Mediator should adopt the actual line of possession 
drawn by the Mixed Commission, which is substantially 
the same as that followed in the title deeds issued in the 
two countries. Having thus fixed the de jure line for the 
first section, if it should prove objectionable as a com- 
promise line, it could be rectified by finding the most 
direct line between these two mountain peaks, or else 
by running it along those streams which should most 
nearly approximate the legal frontier. 

3. For the second section or district the starting 
point would be Cerro Obscuro above mentioned, thence 



68 

along the Cerro Las Flores to Llano del Jicaro. This 
point is suggested as the terminus of the second sec- 
tion as being more definite than the parallel of Copan 
fixed by the Mixed Boundary Commission as the 
terminus thereof, and because Cerro Llano Grande 
indicated by the Economic Survey is in the center of 
lands surveyed during colonial times as in the Province 
of Honduras. Besides, Llano del Jicaro is fixed as the 
dividing line of the two provinces in the Honduranean 
titles to the lands of Tapesco y Leona and Jutes and in 
the Guatemalan title to the Ejidos de San Juan Camo- 
tan, measured respectively in 1752, 1722 and 1743 (Hon- 
duranean Exhibit, printed vol. HI, pp. 99, 101, 102, 
111, 200 and 201 ) . There is the further important cir- 
cumstance that Surveyor Vicente Ruiz Machorro, who 
measured the first mentioned of these titles had been 
commissioned a Subdelegate of Lands (Land Commis- 
sioner) by the colonial authorities of the two Districts 
of Gracias a Dios (Honduras) and Chiquimula de la 
Sierra (Guatemala), to measure the border lands of 
both Districts and furthermore that Llano del Jicaro 
is a boundary easily identified because it runs in the 
vicinity of the confluence of Quebrada Caparja and the 
Copan River, near the place where the latter makes a 
sharp turn to the east. 

Counsel for Honduras feel certain that the Mediator 
will find abundant proof that the District of Gracias 
a Dios, at present composed of the Departments of 
Ocotopeque, Copan, Santa Barbara and Cortez, be- 
longed to the Province of Honduras from the time 
of the Conquest, in conformity with the cedillas of 1563 



69 

and 1564 (as construed by Honduras) ; that it continued 
to belong to Honduras at the time of Independence, 
according to the evidence submitted; that the Copan 
Valley formed a part of this province and constituted 
its boundary with Guatemala, and has belonged to Hon- 
duras during the same period and since then to the 
present day, according to the documentary evidence, 
particularly the judicial evidence {Ibid, pp. 211 to 
255); that the best means of determining the pre- 
cise boundaries between Chiquimula de la Sierra and 
Gracias a Dios, are the title deeds issued respectively 
in Honduras and Guatemala, where the lands abut 
on the frontier, principally those antedating 1821, and 
those subsequent as evidence of continued possession, 
such title deeds having been issued by the superior 
authorities of each Province and confirmed either by 
the King in person or by the Captain General of the 
Kingdom or by the Royal Audiencia in the King's 
name, and, after Independence, by the Governments of 
the States or Republics. 

If the Honorable Mediator should come to this con- 
clusion, then in order to draw the line connecting these 
termini of the second section of the de jure line, he 
could take the boundaries mentioned in the land titles ; 
but if he should feel that this might give rise to dif- 
ferences and considerable expense, he could adopt the 
line of possession traced upon scientific considerations 
by the Boundary Commission acting by common accord 
in 1908 and 1910. The result of their labors is clearly 
set forth in the minutes of their meetings ; and has been 
marked out on the respective maps submitted by the 



70 

parties to this mediation. The Hne of possession fol- 
lows in general along the line of the title deeds, and 
where it departs therefrom it is clearly to the detriment 
of Honduras, because it leaves in Guatemala a part of 
Sitio del Potrero and the greater portion of Tapezco 
y Leona, both of which lie legally in Honduras. 

Having declared the above de jure line, there would 
be a basis for determining compensations, if, as seems 
probable, the Mediator should consider this line too 
irregular, and in parts not sufficiently visible to the 
inhabitants, and should therefore deem it advisable to 
suggest a compromise line, either following the course 
of streams or of clearly distinguishable mountains 
which should approximate the declared line. The maps 
filed with the Honorable Mediator by the parties pro- 
vide sufficient data for the purpose. 

4. In order to fix the de jure line for the third 
section, the Mediator might commence with the end 
of the preceding section (Llano del Jicaro) ; thence to 
Cerro Chaguite, recognized as the boundary line in the 
title deeds to Ejidos de Camotan in Guatemala and 
Jutes and Chaguites in Honduras; thence to Cerros 
Barbasco and Tizamarte, recognized as boundaries be- 
tween Chaguites, Jute and Pexja (the latter in Guate- 
mala) ; and from this point, which is also the boundary 
of the Hacienda of Managua, to the junction of the 
Quebradas of Sururuin and Las Vegas, where the 
Sitio Pexja terminates. This is the last tract of land 
measured on this line prior to Independence, Chaguite 
having been measured in 1736 and Pexja in 1741 (Hon- 
duranean Exhibits, printed vol. Ill, pp. 202-210). 



71 

From said junction the Honorable Mediator has the 
choice of taking the Sierra Copan to the Motagua 
River, as mentioned and recommended by Larreynaga 
and Marure; or of following the boundaries of the 
Managua Hacienda measured in Honduras in 1885, up 
to the Managua River, which line Honduras has 
accepted although more favorable to Guatemala, and 
thence along said river to the Motagua. 

5. In their Brief (point VH), Counsel for Hon- 
duras have set forth the grounds on which they based 
their conviction that the de jure line of 1821 continued 
thence to Lake Izabal or Golfo Dulce, and from there 
along its border and outlet to the sea. 

In view, however, of the course of events since In- 
dependence, and more particularly of the effect of long- 
continued effective occupation in the adjustment of 
American boundary disputes (as candidly considered in 
the present Memorandum), Counsel for Honduras 
appreciate that in the third section, the Honorable 
Mediator may feel impelled here to depart from the 
line de jure, so that Guatemala may obtain sovereignty 
over the territory covered by its railroad and ports, — 
always provided that Honduras shall receive equitable 
compensation. But it is expected by Counsel for Hon- 
duras, that on the considerations of justice and equity 
discussed hereinabove, he will recommend the line along 
the Motagua River to its ancient mouth. Only thus 
can Honduras utilize the eastern bank on which to 
prolong its railroad line to the Copan Valley and thus 
bring about the development of her territory. 



72 

6. For further data as to the detailed meander of 
the Hne dc jure, the Honorable Mediator is referred to 
the final memorandum of the Honduranean Represen- 
tative (Note of Aug. 27, 1918, Mediation Record, vol. 
I, pp. 223-227). 

7. In conclusion, Counsel for Honduras deem it 
advisable to draw the attention of the Honorable 
Mediator to the following practical considerations : 

(a) In order that the joint use of the Motagua 
River to the sea may be harmoniously enjoyed, the two 
countries should under his auspices enter into a special 
protocol regulating the use of the river for customs, 
police and navigation and of its waters for agricultural, 
industrial and municipal purposes, following the ex- 
perience acquired in connection with other international 
rivers (supra, p. 22). 

To the extent that the Honorable Mediator should 
recommend the Alanagua or Copan Rivers, the regula- 
tion of these streams should also be provided in the 
special protocol. 

In addition, if the Mediator should recommend the 
old mouth of the Motagua, — as urged by Counsel on 
the established principles of international law (Brief 
for Honduras, Mediation Record, vol. II, pp. 464- 
465), — this protocol should make provision for the 
execution, at the joint expense of the parties, of the 
works necessary to restore the waters of the river to 
its old bed. 

(b) In order that Guatemala may have the exclu- 
sive control of the Interoceanic Railroad, which, cross- 



73 

ing the Managua River, penetrates Honduras as far 
as Puente de los Amates, it is suggested to the Honor- 
able Mediator that a protective zone of one kilometer, 
west of and and parallel to said railroad, up to one kilo- 
meter below the bridge, may be granted to Guatemala. 

(c) The compensation which Honduras should 
receive for the territory thus surrendered by it on the 
western side of the Motagua River and along the Man- 
agua River, in order to provide a protective zone for the 
Interoceanic Railroad, could be granted in all three 
sections. This will facilitate the selection of nat- 
ural, stable and easily discernible boundaries. If com- 
plete compensation could not be made in lands, the Hon- 
orable Mediator should devise other equitable forms of 
compensation, to make up for the difference in the area 
and the quality of the lands allotted respectively to the 
parties. 

{d) One item of the compensation which the Hon- 
orable Mediator could grant to Honduras would be the 
territory comprised between the Managua and Pexja 
Rivers, in this case extending the protective zone of the 
Interoceanic Railway to the latter river. The boundary 
could then continue along the Pexja River up to the 
junction of the Quebradas Sururuin and Las A'egas, 
which form two of the head-waters of the Pexja and 
also an old recognized boundary, as stated hereinabove 
with reference to the third section. 

(e) In order the better to determine the proper 
reciprocal compensations, it would seem advisable, once 
the line de jure from Cerro Brujo to the sea is de- 



74 

dared, to trace the compromise line, beginning at the 
sea and proceeding then inland. 

(/■') If the recommendations of the Honorable 
Mediator are accepted by the two Governments, stipu- 
lations of course must be inserted in the resultant con- 
vention for the actual demarcation of the boundary- 
recommended. On account of the great expense which 
would be entailed in following either of the programs 
alternatively suggested by the Economic Survey for 
the demarcation of the frontier {Report, nos. 146-151), 
Counsel for Honduras believe that it would be suffi- 
cient that the work of demarcation be effected by not 
more than four engineers, two named by each of the 
two Governments, these engineers to work under the 
supervision of an engineer appointed by the Honorable 
Mediator, his appointee to be given authority to make 
final decision in the field of any differences which 
should arise between the engineers of Guatemala and 
Honduras. It would tend to celerity in the demarca- 
tion if the American engineer were authorized by the 
Convention thus to preside over the labors of the new 
Boundary Commission. 

New York, January 28, 1920. 

Root, Clark, Buckner and Howland, 

Attorneys for the Republic of 
Honduras. 
Emory R. Buckner, 
Edward Schuster, 
Augustine P. Barranco, 

Counsel. 



75 



HONDURANEAN EXHIBIT XXVI 
(Filed with Mediator, Nov. 26, 1919.) 

(TRANSLATION) 

To THE Superior Board of the Royai, Treasury of 
G0ATEMAI.A. 

CEDULA 

approving the incorporation in the 
Intendencia of Comayagua which 
[said Superior Board] ordered, 
of the Alcaldia Mayor of Teguci- 
galpa and all the Territory of its 
Bishopric, except the Port and On July 24, 1791 
Military Post (Plaza) of Omoa, 
and that the Treasury Branch 
should remain subject to the 
Superintendency General for the 
reason stated. De Officio 

The King to the President and Ministers of the 
Superior Board of the Royal Treasury of the King- 
dom and City of Goatemala. By letter of April 2, 1788. 
you gave account with certified copy of the appeal which 
Don Juan Nepomuceno de Quesada, being Governor- 
Intendente of Comayagua, made to your Superior Gov- 
ernment, setting forth that through what is provided 
in articles 8 and 9 of the Royal Ordinance of Inten- 
dentes to the effect that the several officials of each 
Province should be considered Subdelegate Vice- 
Patrons of the Principal official, and that after its pub- 
lication the Corregimientos and Alcaldias Mayores 



76 

should be suppressed as they should become vacant, it 
appeared to him that in this number should be compre- 
hended the Alcaldia Mayor of Tegucigalpa, whose 
Province was subordinate to that of his command, and 
that it was so united with his Province as well in Eccle- 
siastical matters as in the collection of Tribute, pay- 
ment of salaries and other matters relating to the Royal 
Treasury, that the Royal intentions detailed in the said 
Royal Ordinance could not be entirely obeyed, if all 
were not subject to the Order of the Intendencia, and 
that for the same reason he considered that the occa- 
sion had arrived of reuniting also with the Intendencia 
the District of San Pedro de Sula, which by special 
order of the late President-Governor of your Kingdom, 
Don Matias de Galvez, was added to the Commandancy 
of Omoa, but with the proviso that this should only be 
for the time that the war should endure ; since although 
the war had ended, he did not represent it [the District 
of San Pedro de Sula], believing that said Command- 
ant did so in order to have said District more in view, 
at the present day he was forced to request that its 
reunion be considered as indispensable for the collec- 
tion of Tribute in accordance with the method estab- 
lished by said Ordinance, declaring also whether the 
Treasuries of Omoa should be considered subject to 
the Intendencia as established in the District of the 
Province, in order with this knowledge to make the 
distribution of the towns and Valleys which should pay 
tribute into the said Treasuries, and into those of Coma- 
yagua, or whether all should go to these Treasuries. 



77 

That the docket having been brought to your 
Superior Board with the docket relative to the sup- 
pression of the Corregimientos of Sitiava, Nicoya and 
Matagalpa, at the meeting held on January 9 of said 
year 1788 you ordered the incorporation in the In- 
tendencia of Comayagua of the said Alcaldia of Teguci- 
galpa with all the Territory of its Bishopric, with the 
exception only of the military post (plaza) and port 
of San Fernando de Omoa, where its Political and 
Military Governor should remain as it had up to then, 
the Treasury Department continuing subject to the 
Superintendency General and separated from the Prov- 
ince of Comayagua, in consideration of the fact that 
said military post (plaza) and Government had always 
corresponded to the Superior Government of the King- 
dom and of the fact that its ties with Golfo-dulce, Bode- 
gas Altas and the Royal Customs of your Capital would 
not suffer its separation from the said Superintendency 
without leaving exposed to many complications mercan- 
tile operations and the operations of the Royal Treasury 
which daily occurred in the said Port, which Order 
(Providencia) you hoped would merit my Royal 
approval or that I should be pleased to decide what 
should be my Royal wish. 

Said order having been considered in my Council of 
the Indies, with what my Solicitor General (Fiscal) 
stated as to its meaning and as to what was reported 
by the Office of the Auditor General, and I having been 
consulted thereon on May 27 last past, I have resolved 
to approve (as by this my Royal Cedula I approve) 



78 

in all its parts your said order in respect of being in 
due form, and in conformity with what is provided in 
article 3 of the Royal Ordinance of Intendentes of New 
Spain, and of being thus my will, and that note be 
taken of this Cedula in the said Office of the Auditor 
General. Done in Madrid, July 24, 1791.— I, the King. 
-—By mandate of the King, our Lord.— Antonio Ven- 
tura de Taranco. — Three flourishes. — Note was taken 
in the Office of the Auditor General of the Indies. 
Madrid, July 30, 1791.— By reason of the occupation 
of the Auditor General, Don Lorenzo de Usoz. — ( A 
flourish). 

A copy in conformity with the original existing in 
this General Archive of the Indies, in Shelf 100, Box 2, 
Bundle 9. 

Seville, Septem.ber 19, 1919. 
Approved.— P. Torres Lanzas, Chief.— V. Llorens, 
Secretary. — A seal number A. 9344919. 



79 



REPLY BY DR. MARY W. WILLIAMS TO REMARKS 
MADE BY COUNSEL FOR GUATEMALA IN HIS 
MEMORANDUM ON THE ECONOMIC SURVEY 
REPORT, OF DECEMBER, 1919, REGARDING 
CARTOGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY 
. HONDURAS. 

Messrs. Root, Ci.ark, Buckner and HowIvAnd, 
Attorneys for the Republic of Honduras. 

Emory R. Buckner, Edm^ard Schuster and Augus- 
tine P. Barranco, of Counsel, 

31 Nassau Street, New York City. 

Dear Sirs : 

The Counsel for the Guatemalan Special Mission, 
in his Memorandum of December, 1919, relating to 
the Economic Survey Report, makes certain statements 
intended to discount the evidential value of my report, 
dated September 15, 1918, upon the Cartographical 
and Geographical Data bearing upon the Hondura- 
nean-Guatemalan Boundary Question. In consequence, 
I have prepared the following memorandum by way 
of reply, and hereby submit it for your consideration 
and the consideration of the Honorable Mediator. 

MEMORANDUM. 

After presenting arguments for a mountain rather 
than a river boundary between Honduras and Guate- 
mala, the Counsel for the Guatemalan Special Mission, 
in his Memorandum of December, 1919, on the Econo- 
mic Survey Report, calls attention to certain alleged 



80 

and actual topographical omissions and inaccuracies 
connected with some of the maps filed by Honduras, 
as well as with the map made by Byrne in 1886. The 
deficiencies in the maps by no means escaped the atten- 
tion of the author of the Cartographical and Geo- 
graphical Report. In some instances they were spe- 
cifically pointed out in the description of a given map, 
and in all cases they were taken into consideration. 

The explanation of the inadequacy of the maps as 
a representation of the topography of the southwestern 
frontier of Honduras is that this section is mountain- 
ous. It is virtually impossible for a traveller, whether 
from official or private life, to form a correct mental 
picture of a whole mountain system after traversing 
merely a small part of it ; and the broken ranges which 
in the region in question, run to the north-east, at 
right angles to the Sierra Madre, as the Continental 
Divide is called in Central America, tend to make such 
an undertaking particularly baffling. The mountains, 
being largely found in the interior of the land, would, 
furthermore, be studied by only the occasional traveller 
forced to cross them; and to him they proved an 
obstacle to progress. 

Rivers, on the other hand, are by their very nature 
simple and comprehensible; and the streams of Cen- 
tral America were from the earliest times used as 
highways by Government agents or residents who 
wished to go from the coast to the interior. The 
mouths of the rivers also became very familiar to the 
mariners who visited the coasts ; and the upper waters 



81 

of many of the streams were for long intervals occupied 
by camps of log-cutters. 

Since European cartographers as a rule secured 
the data which they used in drawing their maps of 
Central America from persons who visited the region 
to be delineated, — there were of course no maps and 
reports of topographical surveys, with the exception 
of those of the Hydrographic Office of the British 
Admiralty published in the thirties of the last cen- 
tury — it must be very apparent that the drainage sys- 
tem of Central America has since the earliest times 
been portrayed by the cartographers with much greater 
accuracy than have the mountains. Even the most 
modern maps do not depict the latter with accuracy 
in detail. Therefore, any early mapmaker, who, in the 
absence of exact knowledge, showed sufficient scholarly 
discrimination to omit all trace of mountains in rep- 
resenting a region, or to insert only those ranges with 
reference to the location of which he felt reasonably 
certain, is worthy of the highest respect. 

It was because the writer was aware of the much 
greater reliability of rivers than mountains as land- 
marks on the maps that in her Cartographical Report, 
she stressed the position of the former rather than 
the latter, with reference to the boundary line. Like- 
wise, since towns make an individual impress upon 
the mind of the traveller, who is pretty certain to learn 
what national flag waves over a town through which 
he passes, a similar emphasis was given in the descrip- 
tion of the maps to the position of towns with reference 



82 

to the boundary. The following extract will illustrate 
the author's method : 

"This map indicates Honduras' western 
boundary by means of a dotted line beginning 
at Bodegas on Pyrats Lagoon and running to 
the southwest, giving Cape Three Points, 
Gracias a Dios, and the whole of the Guanacos 
River Valley, in which are Tencoa and Chiqui- 
mula, to Honduras" (Note on Bellin, 1754 (?) 
Map, Cartographical Report, Mediation Rec- 
ord, vol. n, p. 504). 

Before turning from the question of mountains 
and their baffling characteristics, it appears relevant to 
point out that the Counsel for the Guatemalan Special 
Mission himself was unable to describe correctly the 
position of these topographical features even after they 
had been accurately represented by cartographers. 
Please note the following {Mem., p. 6) : 

"This mountain range at its northern end 
begins at a point adjacent to the sea coast a 
little to the westward of Omoa, and extends in 
a generally southwesterly direction carrying 
the names successively of Montahas de Omoa, 
Sierra del Espiritu Santo, Montanas de la 
Grita, or Montafias del Gallinero, until it turns 
directly south under the name of Cordillera del 
■ Merendon, and continues in that direction be- 
yond the Salvador frontier, which crosses it 
near the point on the map called Pena de 
Cayahuanca." 



83 

The fact of the matter is that the frontier of Salva- 
dor dooes not even touch the mountains in question; 
and much less does it cross them. The frontier line 
of the State runs generally parallel with the Cordillera 
system, and to the south of it; and coincides for some 
distance with the valleys of the Sumpul and the Lempa 
rivers. If the Counsel for Guatemala had noted care- 
fully the excellent maps made by the engineers of 
Honduras and Guatemala in connection with the Medi- 
ation, he would have avoided the error. 

The Counsel for Guatemala has alleged further car- 
tographical inaccuracy of a political nature {Mem., 
p. 21). Some of the maps of the late eighteeenth and 
early nineteenth century show Guatemala as bordering 
upon Nicaragua at the east, through the omission of the 
Province of Salvador, and, generally the same maps, 
fail to give Honduras a frontage on the Gulf of Fon- 
seca. In various instances, the author of the Carto- 
graphical Report has called attention to this same in- 
accuracy, and admits that the map in question is weak- 
ened as evidence because of it. However, she by no 
means meant to give the impression that all maps in 
the collection having the above-described character- 
istics are inaccurate, which the Counsel for Guate- 
mala appears to believe {Mem., p. 21). Whether or 
not such a map is inaccurate depends entirely upon its 
date. It is probable that the Counsel for Guatemala 
was not aware of the fact — very important in Central 
American history — that Salvador did not come into 
existence as a province, and Honduras did not secure 



84 

a frontage on the Pacific, until very late in the eigh- 
teenth century. According to Dr. Santiago I. Bar- 
berena, the province of Salvador was inaugurated in 
1788 (Historia de Bl Salvador, II, 397-398, 437-439) ; 
and the change in the southern boundary of Honduras 
was made in or about the same year {Ibid., 397-398, 
434-435). 

The faults of the map-makers are, therefore, simply 
due to the fact that the latter were in some instances 
behind the times, and represented as true what no 
longer was so. An inspection of the maps listed in 
the introduction to the Cartographical Report {Media- 
tion Record, vol. II, pp. 487-489) will make it quite 
obvious that only a very small fraction of the thirty- 
three — and not sixteen of them as the Counsel for 
Guatemala implies — are erroneous as regards the 
points in c[uestion. 

It should be patent in the light of the above-men- 
tioned facts that though the evidential value of a few 
of the maps submitted is discounted as regards the 
southwestern frontier of Honduras, they may, never- 
theless, throw light upon the boundary line to the 
northwest, because this section was better known to 
travellers than the Pacific Coast region, and here also 
the political units had been established since the six- 
teenth century. 

A number of the maps submitted with the Carto- 
graphical Report show no specific boundary line, but 
the author of the report indicates the approximate posi- 
tion that the line would take, — were there one, — by 



85 

noting the position of the provincial names, particularly 
"Honduras". The Counsel for Guatemala infers that 
the decisions of the writer are arbitrary, and endeavors 
to prove this by methods that are not compatible with 
even an elementary knowledge of maps. He not only 
overlooks such matters as the spacing of letters in the 
designation of provinces, and the position of the name 
of one province with relation to that of another, on the 
maps showing no boundaries, but even fails utterly to 
take note of what is taught by these details on maps 
showing specific lines of provincial demarcation. For 
instance, ignoring the fact that on the Jefferys, 1792, 
map, the name "Vera Paz" is carefully limited to the 
region west of the Gulf of Dulce, the Counsel for 
Guatemala declares that since the "H" of the word 
"Honduras" is placed to the right, or east, of the Rio 
Ulua, the more legitimate conclusion left for the author 
of the Cartographical Report was that Honduras was 
regarded by the cartographer as extending only to the 
Ulua, and not to the Dulce as the author of the Report 
suggests. That this conclusion is inadmissible will be 
evident to the Honorable Mediator if he will glance at 
the Alzate, 1767, map which gives Honduras a very 
clear, broad boundary line, but places the "H" of the 
word "Honduras" nearly one-third of the length of the 
province of Honduras to the east of the western line. 
The Counsel for Guatemala was most unfortunate in 
selecting the Jefferys, 1792, map. Although this edi- 
tion of Jefferys is unaccompanied by a text, the Jefferys 
map of 1799 is accompanied by an extensive geographic 



8G 

description, from which a quotation is made in tlie 
Cartographical Report, reading as follows {Mediation 
Record, vol. II, p. 509) : 

*'The port of St. Thomas [St. Thomas of 
Castille, mentioned earlier upon the page], we 
have just mentioned, is in the large province of 
Honduras, where begins a new Audience . . . 

The Province of Honduras, the most north- 
ern of its [Guatemala's] government, compre- 
hends not only all the south side of the Bay, 
which has given it its name, but likewise a great 
part of the coast to the south of Cape Gracias a 
Dios; this, at least, is the pretension of the 
Spaniards . . ." [Then follow British 
claims in the name of the King of the Mosquitos, 
etc.] 

Since the two Jefferys maps under discussion, are 
identical, — and were doubtless made from the same 
plate, — it is apparent from the above quoted passage 
that the writer erred on the side of conservatism when 
she stated that the Jefferys map of 1792 indicated that 
Honduras extended only to the Gulf of Dulce. 

In this connection it is well to note also that the 
text accompanying the Laet, 1625, map (Cartog. 
Report, Mediation Record, vol. II, pp. 496-497) and 
that of Blaeu, dated 1664-1665 (Ibid., p. 498), support 
exactly the interpretation of the appertaining maps 
made by the author of the Report, as regards the ex- 
tent of Honduras. And a study of the other maps, 
which show no boundaries and are accompanied by no 
text, in connection with the author's notes, will make 



87 

it quite evident that her interpretations in the latter 
cases are quite as valid as in the preceding. 

Another criticism made by the Counsel for Guate- 
mala is that on some of the maps submitted, "Guate- 
mala is not shown at all." Presumably, the map which 
is the special offender in this regard is that accompany- 
ing Bryan Edward's History of the British West 
Indies, 1793. The photographic reproduction sub- 
mitted includes the whole map as far as it runs to the 
left hand ; and this part plainly shows the dotted boun- 
dary line as starting from the coast between Amatique 
and the Rio de Guanacos (Motagua) and running 
south, giving to Honduras that river as well as the 
Cape of Three Points. The writer fails to see why the 
fact that Guatemala does not appear upon it should 
prevent the map from furnishing persuasive evidence 
regarding the northwestern boundary of Honduras. 

In his comments on the writer's fifth group of maps 
in her Cartographical Report, the Counsel for Guate- 
mala has been inaccurate in construing her conclu- 
sions. The passage alluded to is as follows {Mem., 
p. 22) : 

"As to the eight maps in the final group, 
however, with possibly one exception, none of 
them can fairly be said to support the claim in 
the report that they give the whole of the 
Motagua River as the northwestern boundary 
of Honduras:" 

Thei caption appearing over the group of maps 
under discussion reads : "Eight maps giving the lower 



88 

part of the Motagua River or the whole of it as the 
Honduras boundary in the northwest" {Mediation 
Record, vol. II, p. 489). Seven of the maps in the class 
mentioned give the lower part of the Motagua as the 
northwestern boundary, and only one gives this river 
as the boundary for the whole of the way. But it is 
interesting to note that this last map — which the criti- 
cism implies is the only one correctly classified — hap- 
pens to be what is probably the most important map in 
the whole collection, for it is an official map made to 
accompany the report of Ramon de Anguiano, Gover- 
nor of Hondiiras in 180-1 — a date but seventeen years 
prior to the attainment of Central American inde- 
pendence. 

Notwithstanding the author's statement in her let- 
ter prefacing her Cartographical Report, that she pre- 
pared the Report in a broad spirit of historical 
research, the Counsel for Guatemala implies also that 
the requirements of the Honduranean case led her to 
include in her special classification but seventy-four of 
the eighty-nine maps described in the main body of her 
Report; and that similar considerations induced her to 
describe, discuss, and present reproductions of, but 
eighty-nine of the hundreds of maps that were exam- 
ined. The fact that the remaining fifteen maps are 
frankly described and discussed, should have out- 
weighed any inference of a desire to withhold informa- 
tion damaging to Honduras. If the Honorable Medi- 
ator will glance over the descriptions of the remaining 
fifteen, he will observe that most of them are of a too 



89 

early date to throw any direct light on the boundary 
question. The reasons for the failure to include the 
few maps of later date that were omitted from the 
classification will be made clear upon a perusal of the 
notes accompanying such maps. 

As for the hundreds of unproduced maps, it is 
clearly stated in the introduction to the Report that the 
maps presented are representative of the total number 
examined. Consideration for the Honorable Medi- 
ator's time as well as the uselessness of virtual 
interminable duplication made such limitation desirable. 
It was precisely this desire to make the collection repre- 
sentative of all Central American maps that led to the 
inclusion of those too early to be of value as direct evi- 
dence to the boundary question, as well as the maps 
whose evidential value must be discounted because of 
errors already discussed. Far from selecting only those 
which were most favorable to Honduras' claims, the 
writer omitted reproductions of two maps which were 
particularly strong in this regard because they appeared 
after the Report had been put in final shape for filing. 
These two represented types of maps already included 
in the Report, but had there been any desire to show 
partiality for Honduras, they would have been sub- 
stituted for others of a less favorable nature. Fur- 
thermore, if there exist any maps more seriously 
unfavorable to Honduras' claims than two or three of 
those described in the Report, the writer does not know 
their whereabouts. 

In view of the fact that the Counsel for the Guate- 



90 

malan Special Mission laid special stress upon the 
Byrne, 1886, map, that map should be considered here. 
In his Memorandum on the Economic Survey Report, 
is found the following (p. 17) : 

''From 1886 until 1900 this map stood un- 
changed, as notice to all the world that the 
mountain barrier was the western limit of the 
territorial pretensions of Honduras". 

The Honorable Mediator will doubtless reflect that this 
map, with equal emphasis, proclaimed to all the world 
that the Copan and Jupilingo valleys were the posses- 
sions of Honduras, and that the boundary line of the 
Republic ran about four leagues to the west of the 
famous ruins of Copan, just as stated by Colonel Juan 
Galindo, who examined the ruins in 1835, under a com- 
mission from the Central American Government 
(Cartog. Report, Mediation Record, vol. H, p. 522). 
And it might be added, by the way, that the above- 
mentioned facts should prevent any surprise that the 
Economic Survey Commission reported the village of 
Copan and other neighboring municipalities to be under 
control of Honduranean officials (Report, No. 129). 

The writer deems it beyond her province to decide 
whether or not the Byrne map of 1886 is official, as 
urged by the Counsel for Guatemala (Mem., p. 16). 
But assuming, merely for the sake of argument, that it 
received the sanction of the Honduranean Government, 
the fact still remains that this map comes vastly nearer 
to coinciding with the extreme claims made by Hon- 
duras, to a line to the Belize frontier, than do several 



91 



Guatemalan maps, whose official character can in no 
way be doubted, come to coinciding with the extreme 
Ulua-Fonseca claims. Two of the Guatemalan maps 
that the writer has in mind may be found in the Map 
Division of the Library of Congress. The earlier one 
bears on its face the following legend: "Mapa General 
de la Republica de Guatemala publicado por Maxmilian 
Sonnenstern por orden del Gohierno, 1859;" and the 
later displays an inscription reading thus: "Mapa de la 
Republica de Guatemala levantado y publicado por 
orden del Smo. Gobiernopov Herman Au, Ingo., 1876, 
L. Friedricksen y Cia. en Hamburgo." The boundary 
lines shown upon these maps are virtually identical, and 
run from the mouth of the Rio Tinto along the moun- 
tains approximately as in the Byrne, 1886, map, except 
that Copan is placed about four leagues to the west of 

the line. 

In fact, so far as the writer is aware, there is not to 
be found in the whole world a single map indicating 
Guatemala as extending to the Ulua-Fonseca line; 
while, as the Cartographical Report, with its illustra- 
tive reproductions, presented by Honduras, clearly 
shows, there exist numerous maps of an early date, 
made by impartial foreign cartographers, which sup- 
port Honduras' claim to the territory as far as Belize. 

The Counsel for the Guatemalan Special Mission 
appears to derive comfort from the great diversity of 
opinion shown by contemporary cartographers with 



92 

reference to the Honduranean boundary, and from the 
fact that the differences in the collection as a whole 

"are so considerable and various that it has been 
found necessary to separate these maps into at 
least five different groups, and a more discrimi- 
nating classification would add several more'' 
{Mem., p. 21). 

The lack of agreement on the part of contemporary 
cartographers may be largely explained by the fact that 
some cartographers were alert and up-to-date and knew 
well the location of the actual boundary line at a given 
date, while others tended to copy existing maps which 
were correct at an earlier time, — a fact already pointed 
out in another connection. 

As for the general diversity which made it desirable 
to group the maps into several different classes, ac- 
cording to the boundaries shown, this involves what is 
perhaps the most interesting and significant fact dis- 
closed by a careful study of the collection of maps; for, 
as the author of the Cartographical Report clearly 
pointed out in her introduction, such a study shows 
that 

''in general, the earlier maps place Honduras' 
boundary farther west than the later ones — that 
with the passage of time Honduras' western 
boundary, from a purely cartographical point of 
view, has retreated towards the east" {Media- 
tion Record, vol. II, p. 489). 

The Counsel for Guatemala has not attempted to ex- 
plain the phenomenon just alluded to — a phenomenon 



m 

that would be likely to lead an observer to infer that in 
the course of the centuries Honduras' original boun- 
dary line was gradually pushed east by an aggressive 
neighbor. 

In view of the story suggested by the maps, the 
inference made by the Counsel for Guatemala, that 
Honduras has continually encroached upon the terri- 
tory of her neighbor to the west, becomes singularly 
unjust. The historical fact is the reverse. Guatemala 
has, since early colonial times, been the strongest polit- 
ical unit in Central America, while Honduras has been 
one of the weakest, largely because of the persistent 
interference and encroachments of foreign nations.^ 
Any inference of Honduranean encroachment is unsup- 
ported by either the historians or the cartographers. 
If the charges against Honduras were well founded, 
the collection of maps would show the boundary line as 
moving in just the opposite direction, — from the Ulua- 
Fonseca region towards the west. 

The Counsel for the Guatemalan Special Mission 
states that he has neither examined nor produced any 
maps on behalf of Guatemala, because "for the pur- 
pose of this mediation, the legal boundary claimed by 
Guatemala was conclusively fixed by the Royal Cedulas 
of 1563 and 1564, and has never since been changed" 
(Mem., p. 22). 

May the writer be permitted to suggest that the 

*The encroachments that the writer has especially in mind here are 
those made by the British upon BeHze, the Bay Island, and the Mosquito 
Shore. Williams, M. W., Anglo-American Isthmian Diplomacy, 1815- 
1915, pp. 1-66, passim. 



94 

absence of maps substantiating Guatemala's claims may 
have also proved a persuasive deterrent to the produc- 
tion of such cartographical evidence ? Furthermore, is 
it not reasonable to assume that if the two royal cedulas 
above referred to actually possessed the evidential 
value claimed for them by Guatemala, at least one map 
would have been drawn by the ancient cartographers 
in recognition of the change which it is professed that 
the first cedula created, and the one of the following 
year confirmed? Surely, if such a radical and perma- 
nent political transformation had taken place, this fact 
would not have been unacknowledged by Spanish his- 
torians and cartographers, though it might conceivably 
have remained unobserved by foreign scholars. Yet 
we find that the eminent Spanish historian, Antonio 
Herrera y Tordesillas, who was royal historiographer 
of the Indies, in his Descripcion de las Indias Ociden- 
tales, 1601, and in the original maps made to accom- 
pany it, not only utterly ignores the alleged Ulua-Fon- 
seca line but gives Guatemala no Atlantic frontage at 
all, and indicates that Honduras at the opening of the 
seventeenth century bordered on Yucatan (see Cartog. 
Report, Mediation Record, vol. II, pp. 494-496, and 
appertaining maps). 

The Counsel for Guatemala, after considering in 
some detail the collection of maps presented by Hon- 
duras, concludes by declaring all such maps to be irrele- 
vant and immaterial and as without evidential value. 
In so doing he fails to take account of the fact that 
in most of the boundary settlements that have taken 



95 

place in the New World — and even in such important 
ones as those involving the Maine and New Brunswick 
and the British Guiana and Venezuela frontiers — un- 
official maps have played a part, and in some instances 
a very important part. It may be added that many 
of the maps used in such settlements, — e. g., the recent 
Nicaragua-Honduras arbitration before the King of 
Spain, wherein the underlying treaty was very similar 
to that in the present Mediation, — were the handi- 
work of cartographers represented by the collection 
submitted by Honduras. In a controversy such as the 
present one, — in which documentary description of the 
boundary is lacking — a special importance must be 
attached to what contemporaries thought were the 
boundaries of Honduras and Guatemala. This being 
true, the opinions of cartographers of international 
fame can by no means be ignored; and much less can 
charts and maps made in Central America itself, or 
from data which were, beyond question, gathered 
there. The Alzate, 1767, map, the Anguiano Plan, 
1804, and the British hydrographic charts all belong 
to this type (see Cartog. Report, Mediation Record, 
vol. II, pp. 505-506, 510, 521, 522). 

Another obtrusive circumstance that the Counsel 
for Guatemala has failed to grapple with and eliminate 
is the mere fact that so much cartographical matter 
■favorable to Honduras exists. Though it is entirely 
true that some cartographers copied from others, a 
large number of original maps are, nevertheless, to be 
found in the collection presented by Honduras. Where 



96 

did the idea originate that Honduras' boundary ex- 
tended very decidedly farther to the west than it is 
now acknowledged by Guatemala to do? Why should 
British hydrographers and Spanish officials, who were 
familiar with the region, be in general agreement in 
this respect with professional cartographers of various 
foreign nations, who, presumably, were not? 

Now, it becomes necessary to point out that the 
Counsel for Guatemala appears to have labored under 
the erroneous impression that through his criticism of 
the maps he has also disposed of the evidential value 
of the author's whole Report. She is confident that 
she has shown above that the maps, despite the criticism 
of the Counsel for Guatemala, are still intact as evi- 
dence on the boundary question. In addition to the 
cartographical evidence, there yet remains the very 
important corroborative and supplementary evidence 
of the geographical and other writings cited and 
quoted in the Report, which have not been considered 
by him. This omission might possibly be explained 
in the case of some of the extracts from ordinary 
geographies and gazetteers — which show a relation- 
ship with the maps — by the assumption that the Coun- 
sel for Guatemala considered that he disposed of such 
corroborative material in his discussion of the accom- 
panying maps ; but this suggestion will not explain the 
failure to consider the independent non-cartographical 
evidence of very vital importance included in the Carto- 
graphical and Geographical Report. 

The material in question includes quotations and 



97 

citations from the following writings, listed chronologi- 
cally : 

(1) Carta dirijida al Rey de Bspana, por el 
Licenciado Dr. Don Diego Garcia de Palacio, Oydor 
de la Real Audiencia de Guatemala, 1576 (Cartog. 
Report, Mediation Record, vol. II, p. 493) ; (2) Alcedo, 
Diccionario-geografico-historico 'de las Indias Occi- 
dentales America, 1786-1789 (Jhid, p. 511) ; (3) Juar- 
ros, History of Guatemala, 1809-1818 {Ibid, pp. 514- 
515); (4) Diccionario GeogrdHco Universal, Barce- 
lona, 1831-1834 {Ibid, p. 519) ; (5) Letter from Colonel 
Juan Galindo describing the Ruins of Copan, dated 
Copan, June 19, 1835 {Ibid, p. 522) ; (6) Stephens, 
Incidents of Travel in Central America, 1839 {Ibid, 
pp. 536-540); (7) Instructions of 1844 to the Guate- 
malan Boundary Commissioner {Mediation Record, 
vol. I, pp. 248-257) ; (8) Letter from Hise to Buchanan, 
1848 {Ibid, p. 529) : 

Since Palacio was a judge who travelled about the 
Audiencia of Guatemala in obedience to express Royal 
orders, his statements are of the first importance. It 
will be noted that in 1576, but thirteen years after the 
cedulas to which Guatemala attaches such great im- 
portance were issued, Palacio definitely states that 
Gracias a Dios and Copan are in Honduras. Antonio 
Alcedo, a native of Spanish America, must also have 
known whereof he spoke; and yet he believed that 
Honduras had a right to the territory even as far as 
the west shore of the Gulf of Dulce. The importance 
of Juarros' writings as evidence scarcely needs to be 



98 

pointed out. As synodal examiner of the Archbishopric 
of Guatemala, he not only had access to all of the gov- 
ernmental records, but had occasion to travel through 
the Audiencia. For the period just preceding independ- 
ence, Juarros furnishes even more detailed and illumi- 
nating evidence for the boundary question than Palacio 
does for the period following the cedulas of 1563 and 
1564. It will be noted that Juarros includes in Hon- 
duras virtually all territory to the east of the Motagua 
River. 

On page 2 of his Summing Up of the Boundary Dis- 
pute, the Counsel for Guatemala implies that Robus- 
tiano Vera's Geography, by virtue of its being dedi- 
cated to Dr. Policarpo Bonilla, — in his capacity of 
President of Honduras, — is given an official character. 
If such an inference is sound, the fact that the Diccion- 
ario Geogrdfico Universal of 1834 is dedicated to the 
Queen of Spain is of equal importance to the boundary 
question; and the Honorable Mediator will note with 
marked interest the significant statement in the Dic- 
cionario that Honduras, as a province in the Central 
American Confederation, extended to the Gulf of 
Dulce. 

The testimony furnished by Colonel Juan Galindo 
has been mentioned in another connection (see above, 
p. 90) ; but since it belongs to the class of evidence left 
out of his discussion by the Counsel for Guatemala, it 
seems permissible to emphasize it through again point- 
ing out that Galindo examined the ruins of Copan under 
a commission from the Government of the Central 



99 

American Federation, and that he declared specifically 
in June, 1835, that they were in Honduras, four leagues 
to the east of the boundary with Guatemala. 

. The observations made by John Lloyd Stephens, 
in 1839, while on a special diplomatic mission in Cen- 
tral America, as agent of the United States Govern- 
ment, not only corroborate the evidence furnished by 
Galindo, as regards Honduras' ownership of Copan, 
but add the valuable information that the Copan River 
formed the boundary line at one point; and this point, 
as the study of the question included in the Carto- 
graphical Report {Mediation Record, vol. H, p. 540) 
discloses, either virtually coincided with Honduras' 
"documented line", or lay to the west of it. 

The Instructions prepared in 1844 by the distin- 
guished Guatemalan publicists, Marure and Larrey- 
naga, in anticipation of the boundary treaty of 1845, 
need not be specially considered here. The evidential 
value of these official Instructions as conclusive upon 
Guatemala for any boundary farther east than the 
Motagua River, has been sufficiently discussed and de- 
fined by the notes filed by the Honduranean Represen- 
tative and by the Brief submitted by Counsel for Hon- 
duras. But the writer may be permitted to observe 
that Marure and Larreynaga were content to argue for 
the Motagua River as the boundary, not only as a 
natural frontier furnished by Providence, but as the 
frontier indicated by the official records extant ; and to 
remark that they reached this conclusion after an exam- 
nation and evaluation of the contemporary maps of 



100 

Arrowsmith, Brue, Rivera Maestre and the Belgian 
Colonization Company (Rousseau), which were most 
favorable to the extreme Guatemalan contention (see 
their Instnictions, Mediation Record, vol. II, pp. 250- 
255). 

In 1848, nine years after Stephens visited Copan, 
Elijah Hise, another diplomatic representative of the 
United States in Central America, threw valuable light 
upon the location of the boundary at the northwest. 
In a letter written to Secretary James Buchanan from 
"Honduras, Port of Omoa", October 26, 1848, Hise 
describes the State of Honduras as extending from 
Cape Gracias a Dios to the Rio Dulce, thus confirming, 
as regards the latter limit, the evidence contributed in 
the previous decade by the official Spanish Diccionario, 
which w^as discussed on page 98 above. 

It does not fall within the limits of a reply to the 
criticisms offered by the Counsel for Guatemala, on the 
author's Cartographical and Geographical Report, to 
comment upon the persuasiveness of his arguments for 
a mountain boundary as against a river line. But it is 
pertinent to consider the cartographical, geographical 
and historical evidence which exists to support the line 
of the mountains of Omoa, Espirtu Santo, Grita and 
Gallinero that is urged by the Counsel for Guatemala. 

It may be confidently asserted that there is not a 
single map or geographical or historical work ante- 
dating the year of independence of Central America 
which puts forward this mountain line. All of the 
geographers or historians, notably Juarros, place the 
boundary along the Motagua River or farther to the 



101 

west. As to the maps, none of them indicates this 
mountain line as the western frontier of the Province 
of Honduras; and the most recent official map of the 
colonial epoch extant — that of Governor Anguiano, 
dated 1804 — in contradiction, designates the Motagua 
River. 

Although some maps of the later colonial period and 
of the early years of the Confederation show moun- 
tains as marking the boundary along part of the west- 
ern frontier of Honduras, a careful study of these maps 
in the light of other evidence of a geographical nature 
will make it apparent that the mountains represented 
are not those forming the Gallinero-Grita-Espiritu 
Santo-Omoa chain, or any part of it. The mountains 
depicted on the maps in question are quite a different 
chain. 

To make this fact evident, the writer desires first 
to call attention to the detailed map made for the use 
of the Honorable Mediator by the engineers connected 
with the Honduranean Special Mission. Upon this 
map, it will be noted, is represented an irregular line 
composed of ranges of hills and mountains of varying 
height which extends from Cerro Brujo to Amatique 
Bay. Its course is as follows: from Cerro Brujo it 
runs to Cerro Obscuro ; then along the Jupilingo River, 
in which part of its course it forms the left wall of 
the Jupilingo valley; next, it crosses the Copan River 
and proceeds northward to the left of Sesemiles 
Quebrada (Creek), near the head of which, the Eco- 
nomic Survey Report certifies (No. 61), there starts a 



102 

high sierra which is the divide between the waters of 
the creek and those of Managua River; the line, here 
formed by the high sierra referred to, keeps to the left 
of the IManagua River and proceeds to the northwest; 
crosses the Motagua a little above the mouth of the 
Managua : and continues along the left bank of the 
Motagua under the name of Mico Mountains. 

With the above-described mountain line in mind, 
it is now desirable to examine certain portions of the 
Instructions drawn up in 1884 by ^Marure and Larrey- 
naga for the guidance of the Guatemalan boundary 
commissioner. It will be noted that the point of de- 
parture for the surveyors, as suggested by the Instruc- 
tions in question, was to be Tescatempa, or some near-by 
point (Mediation Record, vol. I, p. 252). By proceed- 
ing along the frontier as directed, the commissioners 
would eventually arrive at the valley of Copan, which, 
the Instructions state on the authority of Juarros, is 
"the divisor between Guatemala and Honduras", sep- 
arating the latter from the department of Chiquimula 
{Ibid., pp. 250, 252). Farther on, the ]\Iotagua is the 
dividing line between the two states (Ibid., pp. 250, 
253). 

Since Tescatempa, as the Rivera, 1832, maps show, 
is in the neighborhood of Cerro Brujo, three points — 
Tescatempa, Copan and the Motagua, — closely related 
to the above-described mountain line, — are frankly ac- 
knowledged by Marure and Larreynaga to form parts 
of the boundary line. This fact would, of itself, do 
much towards identifying the mountains shown as 



103 

forming parts of the boundarv' lines on some of the 
maps of the first third of the last centurv\ But the In- 
structions to the Guatemalan commissioners make a 
further and more important contribution in this regard. 
They state (Ibid., p. 253) : 

"xAJong Copan there passes a cordillera, 
which commences to the south of Mita, and 
which is commonly called ^lerendon,- and inter- 
sects the ^Motagua, and extends to the east of the 
port of St. Thomas, to enter Cape Three Points 
called Punta de Castilla or ^lanavique. The di- 
viding line between Honduras and Chiquimula 
strikes this mountain before it (the mountain) 
intersects the Motagua, the line passing through 
the north of the village or hamlet of Chucuyales,^ 
and it is a point which should be examined and 
marked out very scrupulously. This mountain, 
which the English and French maps call 'The 
Copan', and which is not marked continuously 
in that of Rivera, formes a landmark toward Sen- 
senti, but not in the rest of its course, for which 
reason it is necessar}^ that the commissioners 
shall fix precisely the intervening section. 

"From the point at Chucuyales. following the 
mountain to the ^^lotagua, it forms a boundan.', 
and also the river to its mouth in the Bay of 
Omoa or Honduras." 

If the above quotation from the Insfrucfions to the 
Guatemalan commissioners is compared with the moun- 

- This appears to be an error on the part of Marure and Larreynaga, 
for the Merendon proper does not start to the south of Mita. 

* This point, so far as the writer knows, has never been identified 

in present-day Central America. 



104 

tain line described on the map made by the Hon- 
duranean engineers and in the Report of the Economic 
Survey, it will be noticed that both lines start in the 
vicinity of Cerro Brujo, — which is to the south of 
Mita, — and that both pass in the vicinity of Copan and 
cross the Motagua. This seems to prove the lines to be 
virtually identical as far as the Motagua. 

With this identity in mind, it is well to turn to the 
early maps showing a mountain chain as boundary 
for a part or the whole of the distance at the west. 
Before considering the maps of the nineteenth century, 
it will be of aid to glance at the following of an earlier 
date: D'Anville (1731), Hinton (1755), Kitchin 
(1762),Speer (1771), Jeff erys (1775). Each of these, 
it will be observed, shows the boundary as running 
along a clearly-marked range of mountains to the west 
of the Motagua, and terminating in Manabique Bay, 
or a little to the west of it. The mountains can be no 
others than the Mico range above referred to as form- 
ing part of the mountain line represented on the map 
made by the Honduranean engineers as starting with 
Cerro Brujo. From this it is apparent that at the time 
when the five above-listed maps were made a strong 
belief prevailed that the boundary followed the Mico 
range. 

The Brue map of 1816, it will be seen, gives vir- 
tually the same position for the line as these eighteenth 
century maps, but it does not represent the Mico moun- 
tains. 

The Thompson-Arrowsmith-Alcedo map, of the 



105 

same date as the Brue just referred to, is not so valuable 
as evidence, because the positions and proportions of 
the Motagua and Ulua rivers are inaccurate to a 
marked degree. It is, nevertheless, of interest to the 
matter under consideration to observe that this map 
gives a range of mountains as the boundary for part 
of the distance at the west. And this range is without 
doubt intended for the Cerro Brujo-Mico line, as is 
shown from the point in the main cordillera from which 
it springs, as well as from the fact that, were the 
Motagua given proper position and length, the line 
would cross this river. 

On the Arrowsmith map of 1826, the mountain 
boundary indicated forms, in broad outline, virtually 
the same curve as that made by the Cerro Brujo-Mico 
line shown on the map of the Honduranean engineers, 
except that it crosses the Motagua too near the mouth 
of the river. Moreover, it coincides with the cordillera 
described by Marure and Larreynaga in three respects : 
it starts to the south of Mita; it crosses the Motagua; 
and it is called the Mountains of Copan (Mediation 
Record, vol. I, p. 253). 

The curved boundary line represented on the map 
made in 1829 to accompany the Narrative written by 
Thompson is virtually the same as that on the Arrow- 
smith of 1826; but no mountains are shown on the 
later map. 

On the Brue, 1832, map is a boundary line which 
is similar to that on the Arrowsmith of 1826, in that 
it starts to the south of Mita, crosses the Motagua, 



106 

terminates at IManabique, and for part of the distance 
follows the Mountains of Copan. This line, however, 
corresponds less closely than the Arrowsmith with the 
Cerro Brujo-Mico chain repeatedly referred to, for it 
swings too far to the right and crosses the Motagua 
considerably too low in the course of the river. 

The Squier map of 1849, shows practically the same 
curved boundary line as the Brue of 1832. 

So far as the writer is aware, the earliest maps 
showing a boundary seriously at variance with the 
curved line just mentioned — or with a line still farther 
to the west — are the Rivera maps of 1832, which are 
Guatemalan in origin. These show the boundary cor- 
rectly in its southern part, as described in general by 
Marure and Larreynaga; but in its northern part, in- 
stead of crossing the Motagua, the line runs along the 
right side of the river and terminates in the Rio Tinto. 

The map facing page 758 of Squier's States of Cen- 
tral America (1858), shows an error closely akin to 
that made by Rivera ; and as it gives more detail, espe- 
cially with regards to the mountains, the error is made 
more evident. As in the case of the maps by Rivera, 
this later map by Squier shows the boundary line as 
starting near Cerro Brujo on the Salvadorean frontier; 
and it follows the Cerro Brujo-Mico line for a consider- 
able distance, as is evident from the facts, first, that 
it includes the Jupilingo River and the Copan ruins in 
Honduras, and next, that it crosses the Copan River. 
But in the vicinity of the high sierra described in the 
Report of the Economic Survey it takes a wrong turn. 



107 

Instead of passing to the left and crossing the Motagua 
and continuing along the Mico Mountains, which are 
plainly marked on the same map, it deflects to the right, 
following a mountain chain named Espiritu Santo- 
Grita, and terminates in the Tinto, on the right-hand 
side of the Motagua. 

A study of the most accurate topographical maps 
of the region in question will reveal the fact that such 
a mountain line as the Squier map of 1858 depicts, has 
no foundation in fact. The mountain chain beginning 
at Cerro Brujo, — as the line of Squier does, — does not 
terminate at Omoa near the Tinto; instead, it crosses 
the Motagua, as already emphasized, follows the Mico 
Mountains, and terminates at Manabique Bay. There 
seems to be no question but that Squier confused the 
high sierra of the Economic Survey Report with the 
Espiritu Santo; for he places the latter where the 
former belongs, and gives the Copan ruins, with 
relation to the so-called "Espiritu Santo" range, the 
position that they should have with reference to the 
high sierra. The chain of which the true Espiritu 
Santo forms a part is farther to the east of the 
Motagua, as the best of the recent maps show. 

The writer believes that by the above she has dem- 
onstrated that there is no just basis for a mountain 
boundary line along the Espiritu Santo-Grita-Omoa 
chain, but that, on the contrary, the least favorable 
mountain boundary that Honduras would be expected 
to accept is indicated by the curved Cerro Brujo-Mico 
line. 



108 

In conclusion, attention should be called to the fact 
that although Squier fell into the serious error above- 
indicated, he was not guilty of the mistake attributed 
to him in the Cartographical Report {Mediation Rec- 
ord, vol. II, p. 527) ; for he places Copan to the south 
of the Espiritu Santo Mountains, and not to the west, 
as the writer states. The author of the Report re- 
ferred to was also incorrect in her assertion that Copan 
is west of the Espiritu Santo range; for it is to the 
south, as Squier indicates. The mistakes appear to 
have occurred from confusion of the Merendon range 
with the Espiritu Santo. Counsel for Honduras, it 
should be added, fell into a similar error {Mediation 
Record, vol. II, p. 457, note). 

Mary Wii,hei,mine WiIvUams. 
Goucher College, 

Baltimore, Maryland, 

January 26, 1920. ' 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

1 1 111 111 11 I III III II IK 

015 837 728 7 4# 



